THE QUESTION AT ISSUE IN THE ANDOVER CASE. 



ARGUMENTS 



Rev. Drs. JOSHUA W. WELLMAN and ORPHEUS T. LAHPHEAR, 



COMPLAINANTS IN THE ANDOVER CASE. 



Prepared for the Hearing before the Board of Visitors, 
September i, 1892. 



PREPARED BUT NOT READ. 



PUBLISHED BY REQUEST. 



BOSTON: 

PRESS OF SAMUEL USHER, 

fa Devonshire Street. 

1893. 



tf> 



& 



OF 



co^ 






***€" 



■■■% 



WA 



2JJf2°f(>y 



{Loo 4~-f\ 

7 ^ u,i 






218 



5 



Copyright, 1893, by Samuel Usher. 



CONTENTS. 



PAGE 

Letters 5 

Amended Complaint 7 

Preface 9 

Arguments of Rev. O. T. Lanphear, d.d. 

Argument Maintaining the Thirteenth Charge of the 
Amended Complaint 13 

Argument Maintaining the Twelfth Charge of the 
Amended Complaint 51 

Arguments of Eev. J. W. Wellman, d.d. 

Introduction 85 

I. The Particular Complaints 90 

II. First Particular Complaint 93 

III. Second Particular Complaint 109 

IV. Third Particular Complaint 140 

V. Fifth Particular Complaint 188 

VI. Sixth Particular Complaint 197 

VII. Fallacious Arguments in the Replies of the De- 
fence 249 

VIII. Conclusion 281 



Boston, May 8, 1893. 
Eev. Drs. Wellman and Lanphear. 

Gentlemen, — The undersigned, believing that the Christian public wish 
to know all the facts of the now celebrated Andover Case, the statement 
of which you laboriously prepared, and the presentation of which was 
prevented by the decision of the Visitors ; and believing that the public 
mind needs enlightenment on a question so important to Christian morals 
and Christian truth, and having heard that the argument of the Trustees 
prepared by Eev. Dr. D. T. Fiske has been read by him to the Essex 
[North] Association, would request you to prepare a copy of your argu- 
ments for publication. 



[Signed] Cyrus Hamlin, 
Daniel March, 
Geo. F. Magoun, 
Joseph Cook, 

E. B. Webb, 

F. A. Noble, 
Edward P. Goodwin, 
Arthur Little 
Franklin Fairbanks, 
Daniel L. Furber, 
Thomas Laurie, 
Michael Burnham, 
D. O. Mears, 
Samuel H. Virgin, 
Simeon Gilbert, 

J. L. Withrow, 
W. E. Park, 
Thomas Weston, 

and 



Samuel C. Bartlett, 
Wolcott Calkins, 
Ebenezer Cutler, 
George R. Leavitt, 
E. N. Packard, 
J. E. Rankin, 
G. R. W. "Scott, 
P. B. Davis, 
Philip W. Moen, 
S. L. Blake, 
J. D. Kingsbury, 
Ezra A. Slack, 
H. Fairbanks, 
Lewis A. Hyde, 
L. S. Rowland, 
John R. Thurston, 
G. S. F. Savage, 
John M. Greene, 



others. 



Boston, May 16, 1893. 
Rev. Drs. Hamlin, March, and others. 

Gentlemen, — The undersigned do not feel at liberty to decline your 
request to prepare for publication a copy of their arguments which were 
ready, but were not presented before the Board of Visitors in the 
Andover Case at the Hearing, September 1, 1892. Acting from the first 
under the conviction that the claim of truth and duty is paramount to 
every other consideration, they complied with the request of Alumni, 
and other friends of the Seminary, in undertaking to serve as complain- 
ants, and now as at first, in compliance with your request, a copy of 
their arguments is at your disposal. 

JOSHUA W. WELLMAN. 
ORPHEUS T. LANPHEAR. 



In the Matter of the Complaint against EGBERT C. SMYTH 
and others, Professors in the Theological Seminary at 
Andover. 

AMENDED COMPLAINT. 

To the Beverend and Honorable the Board of Visitors of the Theological 
Seminary at Andover : — 

Pursuant to a decree of your Honorable Board, passed October 25, 
A.D. 1886, the undersigned respectfully ask leave to file the following 
Amended Complaint against Egbert C. Smyth, Brown Professor of 
Ecclesiastical History in said Seminary, to wit : 

I. 

First, we charge that the said Egbert C. Smyth holds beliefs, has 
taught doctrines and theories, and has done other things as hereinafter 
enumerated, which are not in harmony with, but antagonistic to, the 
Constitution and Statutes of the Seminary, and the "true intention" of 
its Founders, as expressed in those statutes. 

ii. 

Secondly, we charge that the said Egbert C. Smyth, contrary to the 
requirements of Articles XI. (eleven) and XII. (twelve) of the Consti- 
tution, as modified by Article 1. (one) of the Additional Statutes, is not 
a man " of sound and Orthodox principles in Divinity according to " 
" the fundamental and distinguishing doctrines of the Gospel of Christ 
as summarily expressed in the Westminster Assembly's Shorter Cate- 
chism, . . . and as more particularly expressed in the following Creed," 
to wit, the Creed of the Seminary; but that on the other hand, he 
believes and teaches in several particulars, hereinafter enumerated, what 
is antagonistic to the Seminary Creed, and, therefore, in violation of the 
Statutory requirements of the Founders. 

in. 

Thirdly, we charge that the said Egbert C. Smyth, in breach of the 
requirement of Article II. (two) of the Associate Foundation, upon 
which he is placed, is not an " Orthodox and Consistent Calvinist," but, 
on the other hand, believes and teaches, in several particulars, herein- 
after enumerated, what is opposed to the Seminary Creed. 

IV. 

Fourthly, we charge that the several particulars of the " heterodoxy " 
of the said Egbert C. Smyth, and of his opposition to the Creed of the 
Seminary, and to the "true intention" of the Founders as expressed 
in their Statutes, are as follows, to wit : he holds, '* maintains and 
inculcates " : — 

1. That the Bible is not " the only perfect rule of faith and practice," 
but is fallible and untrustworthy in some of its religious teachings. 

7 



8 



Amended Complaint. 



2. That Christ in the days of his humiliation was a finite being, limited 
in all his attributes, capacities and attainments ; in other words, was not 
11 GOD AND MAN." 

3. That no man has power or capacity to repent without knowledge of 
God in Christ. 

4. That mankind, save as they have received a knowledge of " the 
historic Christ," are not sinners, or, if they are, not of such sinfulness 
as to be in danger of being lost. 

5. That no man can be lost without having had knowledge of Christ. 

6. That the atonement of Christ consists essentially and chiefly in his 
becoming identified with the human race through his incarnation, in 
order that, by his union with men, he might endow them with the power 
to repent, and thus impart to them an augmented value in the view of 
God, and so render God propitious towards them. 

7. That the Trinity is modal, or monarchian, and not a Trinity of 
Persons. 

8. That the work of the Holy Spirit is chiefly confined to the sphere 
of historic Christianity. 

9. That without the knowledge of God in Christ, men do not deserve 
the punishment of the law, and that therefore their salvation is not 
u wholly of grace." 

10. That faith ought to be scientific and rational rather than 
scriptural. 

11. That there is, and will be, probation after death for all men who 
do not decisively reject Christ during the earthly life; and that this 
should be emphasized, made influential, and even central in systematic 
theology. 

12. That Christian missions are not to be supported and conducted on 
the ground that men who know not Christ are in danger of perishing 
forever, and must perish forever, unless saved in this life. 

13. That a system of physical and metaphysical philosophy is true 
which by fair inference neutralizes the Christian doctrine as taught in 
the Creed of the Seminary. 

14. That there is a " New Theology better than the Old," which, we 
apprehend, is not in harmony with the Creed, but fatally opposed to the 
same. 

15. That the said Egbert C. Smyth holds and teaches many things 
which cannot be reconciled with that " Orthodox and consistent Cal- 
vinism," which the Statutes require of him, and to which he stands pub- 
licly committed ; and that in repeated instances said Egbert C. Smyth 
has broken solemn promises made when he subscribed the Creed. 

J. W. WELLMAN, 
H. M. DEXTER, 
O. T. LANPHEAR, 
J. J. BLAISDELL, 

By Asa French, 

Their Attorney. 

Boston, November 8, 1886. 



PREFACE. 



No apology is required of the complainants for publishing their argu- 
ments, which were not read before the Board of Visitors because of the 
decision to dismiss the Amended Complaint without further hearing. 

Admitting the wisdom of the Board in dismissing the Complaint, in 
order to the performance of its duty in another way : the question at 
issue in the Andover Case is so momentous, the public interest in it so 
important, and the requirements of full and free discussion in the service 
of truth so imperative, as to require the complainants to give their argu- 
ments to the public in this manner, especially, when asked to do so by so 
many representatives of interested Alumni, together with others, and 
also since the public expectation was not to be satisfied by learning their 
views in any other way. 

If any precedent were needed, in addition to the action of the Presi- 
dent of the Board of Trustees in reading his argument in defence of 
the professors prepared for the hearing before the Board of Visitors, 
at a meeting of the ministerial association of which he is a member, 
shortly after the dismissal of the Complaint, reference might be made 
to the fact that The Andover Review, with other representatives of the 
public press, has been diligent in the defence of the professors, claiming 
without warrant that the dismissal of the Complaint was tantamount to 
their justification, and also publishing a series of essays on the Divinity 
of Christ, which, however they may have been intended in defence of 
the professors, must be taken as still further evidence of their departure 
from the doctrine of the Divinity of Christ, as taught in the creed of the 
Seminary. Under these circumstances no valid reason could be given 
in the name of freedom of thought, and its public expression, for with- 
holding from the public the arguments of the complainants. 

These arguments are published in form and substance as they were 
prepared for reading before the Board of Visitors, except that in some 
instances reference is made to certain publications since that date and to 
certain recent events in illustration of the positions already taken. To 
correct certain misapprehensions respecting the standing of the com- 
plainants it may be proper to repeat here in brief what has been 
explicitly, and perhaps sufficiently, declared before: that, in the first 
instance, they appeared before the Visitors simply as " memorialists, " and 
acting according to what they believed to be the deliverance of prede- 
cessors of the Visitors in office; that, instead of acting as "memorial- 
ists," the}' consented to act as complainants under the permission and 

9 



10 Preface. 

authority of the Visitors, when assured that they could not be heard in 
any other capacity ; and that they were to serve in this capacity only 
during the pleasure of the Visitors to receive their service. 

It is also proper to say that, in the mind of the complainants, Pro- 
fessor Egbert C. Smyth, d.d., is not regarded in any sense more amenable 
to the charges of the Complaint than his professorial associate editors 
of the book entitled " Progressive Orthodoxy." That they have to speak 
of him as the alone Respondent is owing to circumstances not within 
their control. As the Complaint was first formulated, it was made 
against all the associate editors jointly, but objection being made on the 
plea that it would be more according to equity to put but one of the 
professors on trial at a time, the Complaint was changed so that charges 
were formulated against Professor Smyth alone. But at the conclusion 
of the arguments of both the Defendant and of the complainants, the 
motion was made by counsel of the Defendant to include with him in 
this hearing his associate editors on their acceptance of Professor 
Smyth's defence as their own, with leave to make such further state- 
ments as each for himself might desire. This was agreed to by counsel 
of the complainants and accepted by the Visitors. But it transpired 
that as one of the Visitors — Dr. W. T. Eustis — was not present when 
the other professors made these further statements, it did not appear to 
him that he could consistently and legally act with the other Visitors in 
coming to a decision which should include the professors whom he had 
not heard. Consequently the Visitors decreed to remove only Professor 
Smyth from office, according to the plea for equity made before the 
hearing of the arguments. This decree of the Board of Visitors having 
been set aside by the Supreme Court on the ground that the Trustees 
were not heard in the case, as they desired, a the Amended Complaint" 
against Egbert C. Smyth was declared to be " still pending," on which 
a hearing was ordered by the Board of Visitors to be had September 1, 
1892, at which the complainants were cited to be present, with others, 
" to be heard thereon." In obedience to this citation the complainants 
appeared prepared to read the arguments contained in this pamphlet, 
which, however, they did not read because the Amended Complaint was 
dismissed, as already stated. 

These arguments, instead of following the numerical order of the 
several specifications, are arranged according to what is conceived to be 
the order of thought — the two first in this order written by O. T. 
Lanphear, and the arguments following written by J. W. Wellman. 

JOSHUA W. WELLMAN. 
ORPHEUS T. LANPHEAR. 



ARGUMENTS 



REV. O. T. LANPHEAR, D.D. 



11 



ARGUMENT 



Maintaining the Thirteenth Charge of the 
Amended Complaint. 



To the Reverend and Honorable, the Board of Visitors in the 

Theological Seminary at Andover. 
Mr. President and Gentlemen, — I am to argue before you 
the thirteenth charge of the Amended Complaint, which is that the 
Respondent, Professor Egbert C. Smyth, d.d., "holds, maintains, 
and inculcates that a system of physical and metaphysical phi- 
losophy is true which by fair inference neutralizes the Christian 
doctrine as taught in the Creed of the Seminary." 

While there may be, in some respects, a variety of opinions 
attached to "New Theology," whether as advocated in the vol- 
ume styled " Progressive Orthodoxy " or elsewhere, there is in the 
philosophy underlying them a common interest. This philosophy 
is pantheistic, whether as pertaining to the domain of physical or 
metaphysical inquiry. 

In England, the Rev. J. B. Heard, arguing for the New Theol- 
ogy, says in respect to the being of God that "unless we can 
make an approach to what for want of a better term we must call 
Christian Pantheism, our theology on the most fundamental ques- 
tion of all will strike a note to which modern science will have no 
response"; and lacking this response, " theology must," in his 
estimation, " fossilize." That the pantheism he has in mind has 
no Christian element appears when he says that " what in Spinoza 
was an evil dream of science is now a sober reality " ; since Spinoza 
held that " all things are but modes of God's infinite attributes." 1 

The Rev. J. R. Illingworth, in his essay on the " Incarnation in 
Relation to Development," in the volume entitled " Lux Mundi," 
argues for the " higher pantheism," which, he says, "is so com- 
mon at the present day," 2 though in this case the reason for pre- 

1 Old and New Theology, p. 5S. Morell's Hist. Mod. Philos. p. 127. 

2 Lux Mundi, p. 159. 



14 Argument on Thirteenth Complaint. 

suming to make the doctrine less offensive by calling it the " higher 
pantheism " is not apparent. 

In New England, the author of " The Continuity of Christian 
Thought," while declaring that Maurice " more than any other 
modern theologian was in accord with the fundamental principle 
of Hegel," and admitting that "it is common to hear Schleier- 
macher, Hegel, and others spoken of as pantheists," does not 
call them pantheists himself, on the ground that " the term," 
as he thinks, " has never been denned," and what " its future des- 
tiny may be is still uncertain." l 

The New Theology, as represented in the volume entitled " Pro- 
gressive Orthodoxy," has the elements of pantheistic philosophy 
found in this theology as represented by other writers. 

It is this pantheistic philosophy which neutralizes the Christian 
doctrine as taught in the Creed of the Seminary. 

I. In the first place, this pantheistic philosophy appears in the 
views held respecting the Divine Immanence. 

In " Progressive Orthodoxy," page 16, there is the following 
passage : — 

We add a single remark upon the general philosophical conception 
of God and his relation to the universe which underlies these essays. 
It is a modification of a prevailing Latin conception of the divine tran- 
scendence by a clearer and fuller appreciation [in accordance with the 
highest thought of the Greek Fathers] of the divine immanence. Such 
a doctrine of God, we believe, is more and more approving itself in the 
best philosophy of our time, and the fact of the Incarnation commends 
it to the acceptance of the Christian theologian. 

This statement is important since it furnishes the key to the 
situation of all that follows in the discussion of the different 
topics. What, then, is the divine immanence according to the 
Greek Fathers ? This question cannot be answered without some 
reference to Greek philosophy, with which the theology of the 
Greek Fathers was in alliance. In general it may be said that 
the Greek philosophers had no idea of the personality of God, so 
that they defined creation as an emanation from God, and not as 
a creation in the proper sense. According to Plato, nothing has 
ever been created. All that is is eternal, not in form, but in 
substance. Something material has always existed, which would 

1 Continuity of Christian Thought, p. 427 sg. 



Argument on TJiirteenth Complaint. 15 

be lifeless except that it has a soul — an unintelligent force by 
which chaotic agitation is produced. God, as the absolute or im- 
personal Being, endowed this unintelligent force with a portion of 
his own intelligence, and then this unintelligent force thus endowed 
becomes the world-soul, or Logos, which pervades the visible uni- 
verse and constitutes one living animated whole, and is individ- 
ualized in human souls. The soul of man, then, consists of the 
world-soul as an unintelligent force of matter, and that portion 
of God's own intelligence — or Logos — with which he has en- 
dowed that force. 1 Thus the Logos is the reason of God manifest 
in creation, which it fosters and sustains. 

This notion of the Logos as the mediator between God and the 
world was not confined to the doctrines of Plato or the Greek 
philosophy, for, as Milman observes, this doctrine was held " from 
the shores of the Yellow Sea to the Ilissus ; it was the fundamen- 
tal principle of the Indian religion and Indian philosophy : it was 
the basis of Zoroastrianism, it was pure Platonism, it was the Pla- 
tonic Judaism of the Alexandrian School." 2 Thus, the Logos is 
not a person, or hypostasis in the Being of God, but an emana- 
tion from him, a ray of light shot out from him, as a ray of light 
shot out from the sun, and to be reabsorbed in him as a ray of 
light may be conceived as being reabsorbed in the sun. The 
world exists, then, in form, by an evolution of God, by his identity 
with the world through the Logos, so that really there is no vital 
distinction between God and the world. It has been well said, 
therefore, that " the whole fabric of ancient and modern panthe- 
ism rests upon the petitio principii, that the doctrine of evolution 
has the same legitimate application within the sphere of the In- 
finite and Eternal, that it has within that of the Finite and Tem- 
poral, — a postulate which annihilates the distinction between the 
two." 3 But in the annihilation of this distinction, God and the 
world are found to be identical. Man is a God-man by the iden- 
tity of the Logos with his soul. 

Again, Plato made ideas eternal and immutable, and as ideas 
were all included in the Being of God, and as ideas constituted 
the only really existing beings, then, all that is phenomenal or that 
affects the senses being mere shadows of the real, it follows that 

1 Charles Hodge's Theology, vol. i, p. 322. Charles Bigg's Bampton Lectures, 1886, 
p. 15. 2 History of Christianity, p. 45. 3 Shedd's Hist, of Christ. Doct. vol. i, p. 13. 



16 Argument on Thirteenth Complaint. 

Plato's system in its essential character is really pantheistical. 
Thus all that there is of intelligence in the world, down to man, 
belongs, in Plato's view, to the divine substance. 1 

So" the aim of Stoicism "was to bring the popular religion, 
allegorically explained, into union with a thoroughly pantheistic 
view of the world." 

Aristotle held that human souls are only the divine reason in 
individual existence. 

The Neoplatonists held that the affluence of God is emitted as 
fire emits heat, and that the soul of man is a mode of God's exist- 
ence, a portion of his substance, and whose destiny is absorption 
in the Infinite Being. 

According to the mysticism of the Alexandrian School, the 
Logos, or reason in God, is reason in man, so that in the pursuit 
of truth supreme authority should be ascribed to "God within 
us," and not to the Scriptures. 

Origen held u to a spiritually conceived theory of emanation." 
" God, as the absolute unity, he taught, can only be a source of 
unity. So far as all existence springs from him, the unity of his 
own essence must reveal itself therein." " God therefore is to be 
originally contemplated as the fountain of a world of spirits, 
allied to his own nature." 2 As Origen held to the preexistence of 
the human spirit, and that it was at length sent into this world on 
account of sin, this passage shows that in that previous state the 
origin of the human spirit was an emanation from the divine 
essence, and so in quality identical with the divine. 

Professor Allen says that " the statement of Hegel may differ in 
form from that of ancient Greek theology, but it is the same 
thing in essential principle." 3 But according to Hegel, " Deity 
is a process ever going on, but never accomplished ; nay, the 
divine consciousness is absolutely one with the advancing con- 
sciousness of mankind." "Apart from, and out of, the world, 
therefore, there is no God ; and so also, apart from the universal 
consciousness of man, there is no divine consciousness or person- 
ality." 4 Such is the Hegelian pantheism. Thus as the Greek 
philosophy in its relation to theology shows that in all its forms 

1 C. Hodge's Theol. vol. i, p. 325, and on pantheism generally. See also Dollinger's 
Gentile and the Jew. 2 Neander, vol. i, p. 621. s Continuity of Christian Thought, 
p. 431. * Morell's Hist. Mod. Philos. pp. 473-477. 



Argument on Thirteenth Complaint. 17 

it was more or less pantheistic, and as the Greek Fathers derived 
the doctrine of the divine immanence from the Greek philosophy, 
it must be regarded as involving the identity of the human with 
the divine. It goes to support this view that the opinion of those 
who may be called experts, whether accepting or rejecting this 
view of the divine immanence, agree substantially in attributing to 
it this doctrine of identity. 

Now, this pantheistic philosophy on which the doctrine of the 
divine immanence is based is opposed to the doctrine of Chris- 
tian theism in the Andover Creed in several particulars : — 

And in the first place, this opposition is seen in respect to the 
Creation. According to the theology of the Andover Creed, 
the world was created out of nothing, both in substance and form, 
and therefore the Creation had a beginning ; while according to 
the Greek immanence the world is an emauation from God, and 
without beginning, matter being eternal, while creation regarded 
as an emanation applies only to the form of things. Thus, the 
Greek immanence lies at the foundation of what is called monistic 
pantheism, that is, that there is in reality but one Being in the 
uui verse, and that Being is God. But as opposed to this, the 
theology of the Andover Creed holds that God created the world 
to be other than himself. Thus it is consistent with its claim 
that " the word of God contained in the Scriptures of the Old and 
New Testament is the only perfect rule of faith and practice, " 
for the Bible everywhere recognizes as true the intuitive con- 
victions of men. One of these convictions is that God is other 
than the world, that God as spirit is not matter, nor is matter spirit. 
Thus the realistic dualism which lies at the bottom of all human 
convictions underlies also all the revelations of the Bible. 

Again, the Greek immanence is opposed to the divine imma- 
nence of Christian theism which is the basis of the Andover 
Creed. In Christian theism the divine immanence is equiv- 
alent to the divine omnipresence. As Creation had a beginning, 
before the Creation God filled the immensity of space with his 
presence. In the Creation God did not displace himself, but 
remained equal to himself, everywhere present in the space filled 
by Creation and everywhere present in space not filled by 
Creation. God's omnipresence or immanence is his presence 
everywhere in Creation, while his transcendence is his presence 



18 Argument on Tliirteenth Complaint. 

everywhere beyond the Creation. In this doctrine of the divine 
omnipresence, or immanence, God is in no sense identical with 
the created universe, nor is the divine in any sense identical with 
the human. This doctrine of the divine omnipresence may be 
said to date from Augustine, who, though receiving his scientific 
discipline from Platonism as well as Origen, nevertheless disen- 
tangled his theology from Platonism in respect to the being of 
God. 1 He says that God " is entire in heaven alone, and entire 
in earth alone, and entire in both heaven and earth, and compre- 
hended in no place, but everywhere entire in himself." 2 

Calvin says that " God represents his residence to be in heaven ; 
for though, as he is incomprehensible, he fills the earth also ; yet 
seeing that our minds, from their dulness, are continually dwelling 
on the earth, in order to shake off our sloth and inactivity, he 
properly raises us above the world." 3 

Charnock, who was a Calvinist, says that " God is most simple ; 
his essence therefore is not mixed with anything. God is not 
formally one with the world or with any creature in the world by 
his presence in it, nor can any creature in the world, no, not the 
soul of man, or an angel, come to be essentially one with God, 
though God be essentially present with it. He fills heaven and 
earth ; he is as much a God in the earth beneath as in heaven 
above, entirely in all places, not by scraps and fragments of his 
essence." 4 

Emmons says, "that a cause can operate where it does not 
exist, is utterly inconceivable ; and, therefore, the presence of the 
Creator, must be coextensive with his works." It is no less a 
conclusion of reason than a dictate of revelation that God ' ' fills 
heaven and earth." 5 

Thus in Christian theism, according to the theology of the 
Andover Creed, the divine immanence is the omnipresence of God 
in the world in such a manner that God is not " mixed," or identi- 
fied with the world, nor is there any identity of the human 
with the divine. 

But according to the Greek philosophy as taught at Andover, 
and the Greek theology shaped by that philosophy, the divine 
immanence is the omnipresence of God in such a way that God is 

iNeander, vol. ii, p. 353. 2 Hodge, vol. i, p. 384. 3 Inst. i, 13. 4 Divine Attri- 
butes, p. 238. 5 Bib. Sac. vol. vii, p. 257. 



Argument on Thirteenth Complaint. 19 

identified with the world, and so as to establish the identity of the 
divine with the human, and thus " neutralizes the Christian doc- 
trine as taught in the Creed of the Seminary." 

It has been said by the defenders of " Progressive Orthodoxy" 
that it cannot be pantheistic because it admits of the divine tran- 
scendence ; but the answer is that it does not admit of the divine 
transcendence in the seuse that attaches to the transcendence in 
Christian theism. According to the latter, the quality of the 
being of God is the same whether considered in respect to his 
omnipresence in the world, or to his transcendence beyond the 
world. But, according to the Greek immanence, the identity of 
the human with the divine gives a quality to the being of God in 
the world different from the quality of the being of God in his 
transcendence beyond the world. In his transcendence the being 
of God is purely divine, but in his immanence the being of God is 
identified with the human, and so confounded with the world. 
Thus it appears that the transcendence which the Greek imma- 
nence can consistently admit must differ in kind from the tran- 
scendence of Christian theism, for in that the transcendence and 
immanence represent the being of God as the same in quality. 
The admission of a transcendence, therefore, does not, as some 
have supposed, go to prove that a theology is free from pantheism. 
Any representation of the transcendence as different in quality 
from the immanence, such as that immanence represents the actual 
or real being of God, while transcendence represents the ideal 
being of God ; or that immanence represents the known being of 
God, while transcendence represents the unknown being of God, — 
is contrary to Christian theism and in the interest of pantheism. 

It should be observed that the omnipresence of God, as the 
divine essence present everywhere, does not satisfy the advocates 
of the divine immanence according to the Greek Fathers. They 
call this omnipresence a presence merely by u contact," or " con- 
tiguity," while they are satisfied with nothing short of that " per- 
vasive" and " permeating" presence of the divine essence which 
constitutes the identity of the human with the divine. They can 
affirm, with Professor Cocker, that " God is immanent in man, and 
that man is immanent in God," and that "the reason of man is 
a beam of the eternal reason." 1 In general, the advocates of 

ir rheistic Conception of the World, p. 353. 



20 Argument on Thirteenth Complaint. 

this Divine Immanency claim that any view of creation which 
represents man as other than God in being, action, reason, moral 
attributes, and personality," is a deistical view. To this effect 
Dr. Douglass says that "Divine Immanency stands opposed to 
dualism in all its forms." 1 It follows, then, that God and man 
are in no sense two, but are in reality one. When man thinks, 
chooses, and acts, it is not man as an individual person and free 
agent that does these things, but God who thinks, chooses, and 
acts in human form. In short, this Immanence represents God 
as in the continuous act of a creation which consists solely in the 
evolution of himself ; hence there can be no dualism, and no such 
distinction as that between the Natural and the Supernatural, 
between Immanence and Transcendence, for the only proper thing 
to say of God is, that he is the "All." 

Thus, though in "Progressive Orthodoxy" it is not indicated 
what definite shade of meaning is attached to the " divine imma- 
nence, in accordance with the highest thought of the Greek 
Fathers," yet the statements of these Fathers respecting this doc- 
trine, as well as the interpretation of experts and the views of 
those holding the doctrine, show conclusively that the basis of the 
doctrine is pantheistic philosophy, and therefore that it is opposed 
to the Christian theism of the Andover Creed. 

II. In the second place, the pantheistic philosophy of "Pro- 
gressive Orthodoxy" is seen in the substantial rejection of the 
doctrine of the Trinity required in the Andover Creed, in favor of 
a Modal or Monarchian theory. Theologically, this has already 
been argued under the seventh charge of the list, so that here 
there is only occasion for brief reference to the philosophy on 
which the Modal theory rests, as illustrated by the views of 
Sabellius and Arius. 

In the Sabellian view, the names Father, Logos, and Holy 
Ghost are simply " designations of three different phases under 
which the one divine essence reveals itself." 2 The Father — the 
Absolute — remains the same, but evolves himself in the Son and 
the Spirit, while in the Triad there is no distinction as to essence. 
There being no personal distinction in the Triad, there was 
nothing inconsistent in supposing these only seeming personalities 
should disappear, be annihilated, or be reabsorbed in the essence 
1 Divine Immanency, Bib. Sac. vols, xlv-xlvii. 2 Neander, vol. i, p. 595. 



Argument on Thirteenth Complaint. 21 

of the impersonal Absolute. But this implied the completed pan- 
theistic circle of evolution and involution, in respect to which 
Neander justly remarks that "as Sabellius made Christ's per- 
sonality to be nothing more than a transient appearance, so he 
must have conceived it to be also in regard to all personal exist- 
ence." 1 Thus Sabellianism was based on that pantheistic philos- 
ophy of Emanation which confounded God with the world. 

Arius undoubtedly supposed that he was establishing " the 
Oriental system of emanation and subordination which obtained a 
settled form through the labors of Origen." 2 But this system 
was pantheistic, whether in speaking of the Logos as an emanation 
or a radiation from God. In Origen's conception of Christ it 
must be kept in mind that he believed in the " preexistence of 
souls," and "the original rectitude, and perfect equality, of all 
created spirits, as they came from the hand of their Maker ; but 
when they all declined, though in different degrees, from their first 
and perfect love, and thence received their diverse assignations, 
in earth and skies, that, which is now the soul of Jesus, was 
alone found stedfast. As a reward for this integrity, and to 
effect the purposes of the divine Incarnation, this soul was 
received into the most perfect union with the Logos, they [this 
soul and the Logos] completely embracing each other, so as to 
become in a sense One Spirit. Thus united, and by this indis- 
pensable medium, God was born a man." 3 Now this pantheistic 
conception of the Christ, in whom the Logos of itself was not a 
person since only a ray shot out from the Father, but became a 
person through union with the preexistent soul of Jesus, was 
retained in the view of Arius, as he understood it, so that when 
he called Christ a creature he only intended to affirm that there 
was a time when he did not exist, without assuming in any 
manner that his origin was not by emanation when at length his 
being began. Thus, however Sabellius and Arius may have 
differed in other respects, they agreed in this, that the origin of 
the Son was by emanation from the Father ; for the thought is 
the same whether it be said that the Son proceeds from the Father 
by efflux, radiation, emanation, or evolution. To admit that 
evolution is legitimate in the Infinite and Eternal, and so in the 
divine essence ; that this essence has continually the power of 

1 Neander, vol. i, p. 600. 2 Ibid. vol. ii, pp. 360, 361. 8 Bib. Repos. 1834, p. 225. 



22 Argument on Thirteenth Complaint. 

becoming, by any extension which implies that this essence exists 
at one time as it did not exist at another time, — is to admit a 
cardinal principle of pantheism. Hence the safeguard of the 
Christian doctrine of the Trinity consists primarily in holding fast 
the doctrine of the real Trinity, One God in three coeternal 
Persons, or Hypostases, equal in honor, power, and glory, and 
each God as implying the other Two. 

In our theological argument on the seventh complaint we 
showed that in some respects the doctrine of "Progressive Ortho- 
doxy " respecting the Trinity was far easier to reconcile with the 
Arian doctrine than with the orthodox Trinitarian doctrine ; while 
in some other respects it was in accord with the Modal theory of 
Sabellius. And we now say that these Sabellian and Arian 
aspects of the Trinity, according to "Progressive Orthodoxy," 
depend upon the pantheistic philosophy of emanation which 
underlies them. In either of these aspects there may be some- 
thing in Christ admitted to be divine, for in either case Christ is 
an evolution of God, but not the Second Hypostasis of the 
Trinity, Incarnate, according to the Trinity of Christian theism 
in the Seminary Creed. Taken as such an evolution the 
divine in Christ might be consistently regarded as variable in 
degree, and progressive in the manifestation of intelligence and 
power. When pantheistic philosophy, modern as well as ancient, 
can affirm that " the divine Spirit is in embryo in man in various 
stages of development," then, according to this philosophy, theol- 
ogy will not be charged with inconsistency in affirming that he 
who Is called the Son of God was developed through periods of 
comparative ignorance and knowledge, weakness and power. 

III. In the third place, the conception of the Person of Christ, 
according to u Progressive Orthodoxy," is in harmony with panthe- 
istic philosophy. 

There is no proper distinction between the divine and human 
natures such as is recognized in the Seminary Creed. The two 
natures are represented as having a natural affinity for each other, 
so that upon contact they mingle, " interpenetrate," and coalesce 
into personal identity. However they might be conceived pre- 
vious to this contact, or union ; as that one"was divine nature, and 
the other human nature ; or that one was supernatural and the 
other natural, — it is obvious that upon this union these distinctions 



Argument on Tliirteenth Complaint. 23 

were no longer applicable. If used at all, they must properly 
refer to the source of this union, and not to the union as consti- 
tuted, so that "Christ's history has for its foundation two 
natures," while "the act of incarnation is the union of these 
two," x so that they appear to have become identical. This 
seems to be a recovery of the doctrine of Cyril of Alexandria, 
who held to the " existence of One Christ in the united deity and 
humanity" in such a way that he could "transfer the human 
predicates to the divine essence, and the divine to the human." 2 
From this, it has been said that Cyril's doctrine ought not to be 
charged with holding notions whereby the divine and human 
natures were confounded, and transferred into each other. But 
while this might be claimed from the paradoxical language used, 
yet it appears sufficiently evident that the predicates of the 
divine and the human were distinctly apart, only in referring to 
the origin of Christ as a union of the divine and the human ; while 
in the actual case after this union the two natures should no 
longer be distinguished, but that both classes of attributes were 
alike referred to one and the same Son of God. The same thing 
appears in Cyril's anathemas against Nestorius, where he affirms 
that Christ was formed out of two natures, formed of two things 
into an indissoluble unity, such as to allow of " the unconditional 
transfer of predicates." 3 Thus, according to Giesler, " Cyril 
seemed entirely to do away with the two natures of Christ." 4 So 
"Progressive Orthodoxy " does away with the two natures of 
Christ. It is said that 

The constitutive act for Christ's person is the union of two natures. 
One of these, the human, is only potentially personal, and is capable by 
its very constitution, of entering into a divine life, of finding the truth 
of its existence in God. The other is a particular mode of the divine 
being, not in itself a person, but the bearer of a personal principle, and 
capable of self-realization in a human life. The act of incarnation is 
the union of these two. 5 

Thus the two natures have in their individual constitution that 
affinity of the one for the other which attracts them into unity. 
The full realization of the human nature is not attained until it 
finds the truth of its existence in God. Nor is the full realization 

iProg. Orth. p. 30. 2 Neander, vol. ii,p.444. sibid. vol. ii, p. 464. *Eccl. 

Hist, i, p. 399. s Prog. Orth. pp. 30, 31. 



24 Argument on Tliirteentli Complaint. 

of the divine nature attained until it finds its self-realization in 
a human life. The one is the complement of the other so that 
their completeness is found only in that union which shows their 
identity. 

The divine nature and the human interpenetrate each other. The 
divine informs the human. The human receives and expresses the 
divine. 1 

Now that the two natures have become one, there is no longer 
any consistency in speaking of them as two. Only before they 
became one may they be referred to as, then, the human and the 
divine ; but since they became one such reference is impertinent. 
Now, siuce the evolution of this unity, there is in reality but one 
Nature as there is but one Personality. Any attempt to represent 
the one, as two, ends in senseless paradox. It may be said of 
the personality of Christ that 

It is the personality of the creative Word, but not simply this. It is 
the personality of the created nature, but not merely this. It is the one 
as affected by the other. 2 

But this mystical balancing of affirmation with negation is a 
waste of words, unless it should be conceived as done to mislead 
those who hold that Christ " continues to be God and man in two 
distinct natures and one person forever," according to the 
Seminary Creed. 

Again, this personality of Christ, in which by " interpenetra- 
tion" the human and divine natures are resolved into identity, 
continues to be subject to pantheistic evolution. As at first both 
the human and the divine were an evolution of God, so after the 
union of the human and divine in the person of Christ, this union, 
or person, was the subject of a further evolution. 

This personality was not fully realized in the beginning. There was 
not only growth of the humanity of Jesus, but a progressive union with 
the divine. 

The Incarnation itself, though real at the beginning, was also a 
process which had steps which the records of Jesus' life enable us in 
some degree to trace and understand. 3 

It is important to observe here that those who hold to ' ' two 
distinct natures " in Christ, according to the Seminary Creed, find 

i Prog. Orth. pp. 30, 31. 2 Ibid. pp. 30, 31. s ibid. p. 32. 



Argument on Thirteenth Complaint. 25 

that he was distinctly conscious of himself as being divine, and 
just as distinctly conscious of himself as being human. Thus, 
whatever growth or development might attach to his human 
nature, in which he might be considered as passing from infancy 
to manhood and from ignorance to knowledge, yet, none of these 
limitations could attach to Christ as being divine. But the theory 
under consideration does not admit that Christ had this conscious- 
ness of himself as being both human and divine, but affirms that 
there was in his consciousness a centre, a consciousness in which 
his individual personality was grounded ; a consciousness which 
was 

That point of rest and union, and therefore of life and power, where 
the divine nature realizes the experiences of the human as its own, 
where the human realizes that its completeness and perfection are in 
God; the centre of a divine-human consciousness, and this Personal 
centre is the God-man. 1 

Taking this view, consistency requires the assertion that 
at the Incarnation the Logos, or the divine in Christ, " sus- 
pended the exercise of his attributes of Omniscience, Omnipres- 
ence, and the like," so as to furnish the necessary conditions for 
assuming the veritable evolution of Christ's consciousness and 
personality from the moment of his Incarnation. Thus, Christ 
in his personality is brought down near to the level of the human, 
since the limitation and depression of the attributes of the divine 
in him are not compensated by any sufficient corresponding ele- 
vation of the attributes of the human ; for when it is said that 
"the human realizes that its completeness and perfection are in 
God," it must not be forgotten that this "completeness" and 
"perfection" are not yet attained, but to be attained some time 
in the future as the result of evolution. Thus while on earth 
Christ was much more human than divine, so that whatever great- 
ness might be then ascribed to him was made contingent upon 
subsequent evolution. 

This view has the support of Origen's emanation theory, 
undoubtedly, 2 as well as that of Gregory of Nazianzus and Greg- 
ory of Nyssa, who to some extent carried forward Origen's 
theory. "They adopted from Origen the doctrine that the Logos 
united himself by the mediation of a rational human soul with the 

i Prog. Orth. p. 32. 2 Ibid. p. 22. 



26 Argument on Thirteenth Complaint. 

sensuous nature. The essential point of this union, the character- 
istic mark of the personal unity, they placed in this : namely, that 
the divine Logos took all the parts of human nature into fel- 
lowship with himself, and " pervaded'' them. They affirmed, it 
is true, that this "permeation" took place potentially from the 
first moment of the human existence ; but, with Origen, they 
taught at the same time that its consequences, in respect to all 
the parts of human nature, did not unfold themselves until after 
Christ's resurrection ; that after his ascension to glory, his body 
also became transfigured to a form analagous with the divine 
essence." 1 This view was accepted essentially by the Antiochian 
School under the lead of Theodore of Mopsuestia. "The pro- 
gressive deification of the human nature in Christ up to the time 
of his ascension to glory, he contemplated as a consequence and 
effect of the original and hidden union — the very end for which 
God had appropriated the human nature even from its birth." 2 
Thus, man, being from the first a God-man as an evolution of 
God, becomes in a higher degree a God-man through the incarna- 
tion of the Logos, or Word, since this incarnation represents the 
further evolution of the divine in humanity through the Christ, so 
that as ultimately after Christ's resurrection his humanity became 
" delocalized," "deified," and "omnipresent," — reabsorbed in 
God, — so ultimately through Christ whose "Headship has a foun- 
dation in the permanent constitution of the human soul, and is fitly 
as enduring as its immortality," 3 all the human race will become 
deified, reabsorbed in God. Thus it is affirmed that here is "an 
evolution which looks to an incarnation as to its adequate goal. 
All things point to man, and man as perfected in the Son of 
Man." 4 Held in logical consistency, free of mystical contradic- 
tions by which whatever is affirmed is also denied, and without 
any mere show of making it consistent with the Christian theism 
of the Scriptures or with the Creed of the Seminary, this doctrine 
of "Progressive Orthodoxy " respecting the Incarnation belongs 
to the pantheism of the East. In reality, man is not ever other 
than God, is always potentially identical with God in the quality 
of his being, while the Incarnation is the evolutionary process by 
which the identity of the human with the divine is displayed not 

i Neander, vol. ii, p. 427; vol. i, p. 639. 2 Ibid. vol. il, p. 437. 3 Prog. Orth. 

p. 34. * Ibid. p. 35. 



Argument on TJiirteenth Complaint. 27 

only as to quality, but in all the conceivable fulness of accom- 
plished fact. 

Now, it is not to be taken as evidence of the orthodoxy of 
those holding this view, or that they are in harmony with the 
Creed of the Seminary, that they assert the divinity of Christ. 
For as Canon Liddon has well said, "When Jesus Christ is said 
by his Church to be God, that word is used in its natural, its 
absolute, its incommunicable sense. This must be constantly 
borne in mind, if we would escape from equivocations which 
might again obscure the true point before us." " For," continues 
Liddon, " Arianism will confess Christ's divinity, if, when it 
terms him God, it may really mean that he is a being of an infe- 
rior and created nature. Socinianism will confess Christ's divin- 
ity, if this confession involves nothing more emphatic than an 
acknowledgment of the fact that certain moral features of God's 
character shone forth from the human life of Christ with an 
absolutely unrivaled splendor. Pantheism will confess Christ's 
divinity, but then it is a divinity which he must share with the 
universe. Christ may well be divine, when all is divine, although 
pantheism too may admit that Christ is divine in a higher sense 
than any other man, because he has more clearly recognized or 
exhibited ; the eternal oneness of the finite and the Infinite, of 
God and humanity.' The coarsest forms of unbelief will confess 
our Lord's divinity, if they may proceed to acid, by way of ex- 
planation, that such language is but the echo of an apotheosis, 
informally decreed to the prophet of Nazareth by the fervid but 
uncritical enthusiasm of his Church." 1 

In keeping with Liddon's statement, it must be said that it is of 
no avail for those who accept of the confounding of the divine 
with the human by their mutual ' ' interpenetration " in the Person 
of Christ, to say in extenuation that they confess our Lord's 
divinity. For in this case, scientifically considered, our Lord is 
neither divine nor human. When two metals are fused together 
so that they interpenetrate, science gives to the amalgam a new 
name. It is no longer recognized by either of the two metals out 
of which the amalgam is produced. When by fusion copper and 
zinc combine, the amalgam is neither copper nor zinc, but brass. 
Such is the miserable alloy presented in "Progressive Orthodoxy" 

1 Canon Liddon's Bampton Lectures on Our Lord's Divinity, 1866, p. 39. 



28 Argument on Thirteenth Complaint. 

as an equivalent for the declaration in the Andover Creed that 
" the Eternal Son of God . . . became man, and continues to be 
God and man in two distinct natures and one Person forever." 
The only escape from the force of this illustration in the premises 
is to affirm that there never was any distinction between the so- 
called divine and human, that in reality they were always one, 
and that it is only an illusion when they are spoken of as differ- 
ent. But this would be to make the honest and frank confession 
of the pantheism which really underlies the view in question. 

IV. In the fourth place, the philosophy of "Progressive Ortho- 
doxy " which requires a pantheistic Incarnation requires a panthe- 
istic atonement. Such an atonement is consistently furnished by 
"Progressive Orthodoxy." Such an atonement could not be 
ascribed to Christ as simply the Mediator to save man from sin. 
As contrary to this, or according to what is claimed as a broader 
view, "Christ mediates God to the entire universe." 1 This, how- 
ever, conforms to the pagan view of the Logos, in his cosmic rela- 
tion to creation, rather than to his mediatorial character as the 
Redeemer of sinners. This pagan view of the Logos, not as a 
Person, or Hypostasis in the being of God, but as an emanation 
from God, has already been noticed according to the statement of 
Milman. The attempt has often been made to show that in the 
Gospel of John this pagan notion finds support, because that John 
declares that " without him was not anything made that was 
made." But since the purpose of John is to declare the equality 
of the Word with the Father, and as eternally preexistent and 
manifested in Time and Space for the gracious ends of Divine 
Love in Redemption, it follows that John did not adopt in any 
degree the pagan view of the Logos, or the teaching of any of 
the existing philosophies. When John says that " God so loved 
the world that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever be- 
lieveth on him should not perish, but have eternal life," 2 he 
shows that the one ground of the divine counsel in Redemption 
was the salvation of men from sin. Thus it is evident that the 
Mediatorship of Christ according to the Scriptures cannot be con- 
sidered as having its ground in the pagan, or Philo-Judean phi- 
losophy, notwithstanding the speculations to the contrary of the 
Tubingen School. 

1 Prog. Orth. p. 43. 2 John 3 : 16. 



Argument on Thirteenth Complaint. 29 

Not accepting, then, the pagan or pantheistic conception of 
the Logos as explanatory of John's conception of the Word, it is 
obvious that the conception of the atonement as founded on the 
former must stand in open hostility to the conception of atone- 
ment as founded on the latter. According to the pagan physical 
and metaphysical conception of the Logos it is legitimate to say 
that " The Logos, that which is absolute fulness and truth in 
God, is communicated into finite existences" ; l that Christ's uni- 
verse " is not attached to him externally, but vitally " ; that " He 
is not a Governor set over it, but is its life everywhere." 2 In 
this view Christ is not regarded as in objective relation to the 
universe, or to man. His relation to man is subjective : he is not 
attached to man externally, or objectively, but is attached to man 
vitally, or subjectively. Whatever benefit Christ confers on man 
must result from the evolution of himself as identical with man's 
vitality, as himself communicated into man's finite existence as 
an absolute fulness, or integral part of man's existence. So 
Christ cannot be an objective Governor of man, because he is the 
subjective life of man everywhere. Thus, carried out, there is no 
such thing as an objective Ruler, or Law. There is no external 
Lord of Creation, no objective King of saints, no objective Lamb 
of God to receive the prayers of his saints on earth, or their 
songs of praise hereafter in heaven. Whatever there is, called 
obedience and praise, under this theory, is solely the subjective 
evolution of Christ in men as identical with their life, because he 
is their life everywhere. In reality, however, there can be, 
according to this conception of Christ, no such thing as obedience 
or praise, and because that, strictly, there is nothing other than 
man, and objective to man, to be obeyed and praised. The poet 
can idealize a flower as having a self-conscious existence, and so 
praising its Creator in the unfolding of its blushing tint and 
graceful carriage. So the pantheistic poet can idealize man as 
praising God, while at the same time he denies to man that pure 
human self-conscious personality by which he could recognize and 
praise God as the supreme object of his regard. Of course, in 
the pagan notion of the Logos, there is no consistent foundation 
for the vicarious atonement of John and Paul. Any attempt to 
produce a theory of atonement on that foundation in harmony 

1 Prog. Orth. p. 43. 2 Ibid. p. 44. 



30 Argument on Thirteenth Complaint. 

with the Scriptures which everywhere assert the objective being 
of God in Father, Son, and Holy Spirit, as objective to man, 
while imparting help to man by the efficiency of grace, must end 
in the confusion and contradiction of pantheistic mysticism. 
This confusion is illustrated in "Progressive Orthodoxy" in the 
statements made respecting the Person of Christ in considering 
the atonement, as well as in what is said of the Incarnation. 
This Person is said to be 

The Infinite, personally disclosed; the eternal Power that makes for 
righteousness realized in the Eighteous One. 1 

Christ's personality is directly and indissolubly connected with that 
of the divine Word. The one is a true revelation and outgrowth of the 
other. 2 

The human nature is a person only with, in, and through the Logos. 
The central point of Christ's personality falls into the central point of 
Absolute Personality. 3 

It is said that 

One view of atonement is gained by considering the historical Christ 
in relation to humanity and as identified with it : in which view we see 
that the race of men with Christ in it is essentially different in fact, and 
therefore in the sight of God, from the same race without Christ in it. 4 

Christ has an organic relation to the race. He is an individual, but 
an individual vitally related to every human being. 5 

His divinity, indeed, is in nothing more clearly shown than in his 
perfect humanity : in the fact that he was not merely the ideal man, but 
the universal man, his humanity not something strange to his divinity, 
but its best and purest organ. 

When Christ suffers the race suffers. When Christ is sorrowful the 
race is sorrowful. 

Thus we can regard him as our substitute, not because he stands 
apart, not because he is one and the race another, but because he is so 
intimately identified with us. 6 

The race is reconstituted in Christ, and is other in the sight of God, 
because different in fact. 7 

Christ is a new divine power in the race to turn it away from sin 
unto God. 8 

The extent of the atonement resides ... in the personality of Christ. 

He is the Universal Person, as we said at the outset. 9 

Humanity with Christ in it is propitiated to the divine thought from 
all eternity. 10 

i Prog. Orth. p. 35. 2 Ibid. p. 26. 3 ibid. p. 30. * Ibid. p. 52. 6 Ibid. p. 52. 
6 Ibid. p. 53. i Ibid. p. 56. 8 ibid. p. 58. 9 Ibid. p. 63. *> Ibid. p. 61. 



Argument on Thirteenth Complaint. 31 

Now, the confusion of thought respecting the Person of Christ 
as indicated in these passages arises from representing him at one 
time as an individual so that in his Person he is other than man ; 
and at another time representing him as one with, or identical 
with, man. Though it is said that Christ is "an individual," it is 
also said that he "is an individual vitally related to every human 
being." He is related to every human being because he "has an 
organic relation to the race." While language is used which 
seems to designate the real individuality of Christ's Person, it is 
also positively affirmed that Christ " is the universal Person." 
As Hegel's pantheism would not admit the distinct, individual 
personality of God, but described him as " the Universal Person- 
ality, which realizes itself in every human consciousness," so here 
it would seem that Christ as the " Universal Person " is not repre- 
sented as a personality distinct from the personalities of the hu- 
man race ; but that Christ as a person realizes himself in every 
human consciousness, so that he is the Universal Man, his human- 
ity not something strange to his divinity, but its best and purest 
organ." But all this is consistent with Hegel's pantheistic Chris- 
tology. He views the idea of redemption as the reunion of what 
he calls the individualized spirit of man with the Spirit of eternal 
truth and love. The race as composed of individuals becomes 
one with God, forming a part of his own essence, members of his 
mystical body. Thus being one with Christ is being one with God 
in essence. To this, " Progressive Orthodoxy " seems to respond 
without dissent in representing " the great reality of reconcilia- 
tion " as "God in Christ and Christ in man," as the interpreta- 
tion of Christ's words: " I in them and thou in me, that they 
may be perfected into one." 1 These words of Christ, then, do not 
express the similarity of the unity of Christ with believers to the 
Unity of the Son with the Father — not the moral or spiritual 
oneness of the Saviour with all believers ; but they express unity 
in the " actuality of its substance, in Christ abiding in them and 
the Father in Christ." 2 Thus the unity of believers in Christ has 
actual subsistence in the divine essence of the unity of the 
Father in Christ. This is a phase of Maurice's Realistic theory 
as held by Alford. To show that the atonement was not vica- 
rious, Alford says that " the body of Christ was not the body of 

1 Prog. Orth. p. 62. 2 Alford on John 17 : 21-23. 



32 Argument on Thirteenth Complaint. 

a man, but the body of man — of mankind — the pattern, and 
centre, and root, and head of that nature which is common to all 
of us, and in which every human being, of all nations, kindreds, 
and languages has a share." " And so, when that Victim hung 
upon the Cross, it was not the slaying of one mere man for an- 
other, which is impossible ; nor was it a mere symbolic sacrifice, 
like those under the old law ; but it was the offering up of Human 
Nature in its head and root — a taking away of sin by its penalty 
being paid to the uttermost." Thus, " at once, human nature, 
our manhood, all mankind, was in the sight of the Father ac- 
quitted from the guilt of sin, and received into his favor." x 

Now, to say that Christ " had no human individuality " ; that his 
was " the body of mankind — the pattern, and centre, and root, 
and head of that nature which is common to all of us, and in 
which every human being has a share," — is evidently only another 
way of saying that Christ was not an individual person, but a 
" Universal Person " ; that his was the " Universal Personality," 
which realizes itself in every human consciousness. This is the 
identity of Christ with universal humanity. And as Christ took 
into union with his divine Person and Nature the manhood, the 
entire nature of man — so the human is identical with the divine. 
Thus the unity of Christ with humanity has actual subsistence in 
the divine essence of the unity of the Father in Christ. But this 
is a Christology evolved from the Hegelian pantheism, and held 
by some German theologians, as well as by some English theo- 
logians of less repute, perhaps, than Alford. There are doubt- 
less others in this country, besides those represented in " Progress- 
ive Orthodoxy," who entertain this theory in some form. They 
may refuse assent to many things in the Hegelian method, and 
yet retain its substance. So "Progressive Orthodoxy" does " not 
claim for the later thought on the Incarnation any exclusive 
originality." 2 The Newness of this theology consists rather in 
gathering up and appropriating the results of past discussions 
along the course of Church history, and especially during the last 
half-century. The sources from which such results may be gath- 
ered even since the dawn of the Reformation are quite sufficient. 
There were others besides Osiander who held the oneness of God 

1 Alford's Sermons, preached in Quebec Chapel in 1854, p. 242 sg. 2 Prog. Orth. 
p. 38. 



Argument on Thirteenth Complaint. 33 

and man, that man is God in at least one form of his existence, 
so that Christ is the realized ideal of the Godhead — a view which, 
Baur says, at last found adequate scientific expression by Hegel. 

Schwenkfeld held that Christ was begotten of God even as to 
his humanity, and as to both natures was Dei jilius naturalis, 
natural Son of God. 1 Servetus, like Schwenkfeld, " speaks of 
the flesh of Christ, of his body and his soul as consubstantial 
with God, but in a sense which admits of an ill-defined boundary- 
line between nature and grace : for, according to his theosophic 
philosophy of nature, everything is of divine substance." 2 

As with Servetus, so in all phases of pantheistic Christology : 
the boundary -line between nature and grace, as between the natu- 
ral and the supernatural, is ill-defined. That line cannot be 
clearly defined except upon the admission of that dualism which 
allows the individual personality of the Being giving the grace, 
with the individual personality of the being receiving the grace. 
In such proportion as this personality of the Giver and receiver 
are confounded or identified, grace disappears. Hence the doc- 
trines of grace taught by Augustine, though on the authority of 
St. Paul, as well as of the Scriptures generally, are offensive to 
the advocates of the New theology, who, like Professor Allen, so 
identify Christ with humanity by his presence in the reason and 
conscience of man as not to represent him as a personal Saviour, 
but as a power by which men are delivered from sin, and this 
without any proper recognition of the Holy Spirit and his work. 3 
As philosophical pantheism affirms the identity of subjective and 
objective so that the objective derives its seeming validity from 
the subjective, so theological pantheism affirms in some form 
the identity of the divine and the human, so that the human 
derives its seeming validity as an evolution of the divine. It is 
true, to some extent, as "Progressive Orthodoxy " admits, " that 
the present movement of thought seeks to find the union of ob- 
jective and subjective elements." 4 But it should be observed that 
as the boundary-line which in truth distinguishes these elements 
becomes ill-defined and obliterated in this quest for their union, 
this Andover movement of thought is in the interest of panthe- 
ism. Accordingly, the atonement can have neither vicarious nor 

1 Dorner's Doctrine of the Person of Christ, div. ii, vol. ii, p. 149. 2 Ibid. div. ii, 
vol. ii, p. 161. 3 Continuity of Christian Thought, p. 162. 4 Prog. Orth. p. 62. 



34 Argument on Thirteenth Complaint. 

substitutional significance, for it marks the union of two parties 
so as to form one party, when the two have no separate existence 
such as to furnish the necessary conditions upon which one of 
them can be vicarious to the other. In this case the parties, in- 
stead of being at one morally by reconciliation, are at one by 
identity of nature and essence. The two do not exist individu- 
ally except as abstractions, for actually there is but one. Thus, 
if, as Alford says, " the sacrifice on the cross was the offering 
up of Human Nature" — "the entire nature of mankind" — so 
that "all mankind were summed up in it" and so that in that 
offering " we were offered up," — that is, that all the individuals 
of the race were offered, — then it could not have been said, as 
now, in the Scriptures respecting the sacrifice of Christ that" His 
own selfb&rQ our sins in his own body on the tree" ; 1 and that 
" we are sanctified through the offering of the body of Jesus Christ 
once for all." 2 

Equally at variance with the Scriptures and the Seminary 
Creed is McLeod Campbell's theory of " Sympathy," or " Identi- 
fication," which "Progressive Orthodoxy" approves. 3 Campbell 
holds, in accord with a theory entitled " The Philosophy of 
Evangelicism," that " a clear avenue is opened between the Christ 
consciousness and the human consciousness, and we detect in 
their intercommunion the accord of the atoning act and the be- 
lieving act. Our Saviour, conscious of our sins, has taken them 
upon himself and atoned for them ; we, conscious of his righteous- 
ness, appear with it in the sight of God and are justified. Our 
sins are his sins ; his righteousness is our righteousness ; and this 
union of Christ and his people in moral consciousness is the 
central idea of the gospel." Thus, by entering into the sins of 
men, or making them his own, Christ may be held to have atoned 
for them, says Campbell, by offering up to God a perfect con- 
fession, and an adequate repentance for them, with which divine 
justice is satisfied, and a full expiation is made of human guilt. 
This perfect confession of these sins which must in its own nature 
have been a perfect "Amen " in humanity to the judgment of 
God on the sin of man; " as meeting the divine wrath against 
sin with a perfect response out of the depths of his [Christ's] 
divine humanity — is a response which [excepting the personal 

*1 Pet. 2:24. 2 Heb. 10:10. » Prog. Orth. p. 54. 



Argument on Thirteenth Complaint. 35 

consciousness of sin] has all the elements of a perfect contrition 
and repentance." But, in so far, how can this be called " a per- 
fect confession and adequate repentance " for sin, while it lacks 
the " personal consciousness of sin"? In defending this use of 
the word "repentance," Campbell says that this word "repent- 
ance will have its full meaning in the personal experience of 
every one who accepts in faith the atonement as now repre- 
sented ; for every such individual sinner will add the excepted 
element of personal consciousness of sin." But, in the words of 
another, " this attempted explanation increases the difficulty. 
It supposes a twofold interchange or combination of penitential 
elements as taking place between sinners and their Saviour. 
On the one hand that which is lacking in the repentance of sin- 
ners, in order to make it ' a full response to the righteous judg- 
ment of God on the sins of men,' is held to be supplied by the 
4 adequate sorrow and contrition with which Christ makes perfect 
confession of sin on their behalf.' On the other hand, that which 
is lacking in the Saviour's confession of the sins of men, in order 
to give it ' all the elements of a perfect contrition and repentance 
on account of them,' is held to be supplied by w the personal con- 
sciousness of sin on the part of every individual sinner who in 
faith accepts the atonement.' But surely, repentance, accord- 
ing to any reasonable or scriptural notion we can form of it, is 
the act or exercise of one individual person, namely, of the sin- 
ner himself, who has done the things repented of. And it seems 
utterly impossible to conceive of it as a combination of the feel- 
ings and dispositions of two or more individuals, whose personal 
feelings are so fused and blended together that each contributes 
to it his own quota of its essential elements." l It may be truly 
affirmed that no one can conceive of such " a combination " from 
the standpoint of Christian theism. It is a combination assumed 
upon the identity of the divine with humanity in tha person of 
Christ, and involves the inconsistency of referring to the divine 
and human as separate individualities, after they have been re- 
solved into pantheistic unity. 

What is here said of the theory of Campbell applies as well to 
the theory maintained by the professorial authors of " Progressive 
Orthodoxy." This appears in the acceptance of Campbell's theory, 

1 Crawford on the Atonement, pp. 327, 328. 



36 Argument on Thirteenth Complaint. 

as well as in the quotations already made. Again, while a uni- 
versal atonement is affirmed in both theories, yet in fact only a 
limited atonement can be consistently maintained in either theory, 
without assuming the final salvation of all men. When Campbell, 
in order to the completeness of the atonement, in vindicating his 
use of the word "repentance" as applied to the confession of 
the sins of humanity by Jesus Christ, represents that the element 
of " personal consciousness of sin," excepted from Christ's con- 
trition and repentance, is an element which every individual sin- 
ner "will add" who accepts in faith the atonement, it amounts 
to this : that for the lack of this " excepted element" there is no 
real atonement for any but " those who accept it in faith." Thus 
far then, in fact, the atonement is limited to the number " who 
accept it in faith." That the atonement is sufficient for all, that 
what is necessary for the salvation of one man is necessary 
for the salvation of another, and for all, is admitted by those 
who hold that the atonement is limited. " The righteousness 
of Christ, therefore, consisting in the obedience and death 
demanded under the law under which all men are placed, is 
adapted to all men. It is also of infinite value, being of the 
righteousness of the eternal Son of God, and therefore sufficient 
for all." 1 But only those will be saved who believe. It is the 
doctrine of the Synod of Dort that no man perishes for want of an 
atonement. In this respect, then, the atonement as represented 
by Campbell is no more universal than is the atonement as repre- 
sented at Princeton and Dort. In either there is in reality no 
atonement for any but such as " accept it in faith." So, in " Pro- 
gressive Orthodoxy," the same thing is implied, if not expressed 
in so many words. It is not claimed that all will believe. It is 
said that the Christian life is ' ' all expressed in the personal act 
of repentance toward God, and of faith in the Lord Jesus 
Christ." 2 It is admitted that there are those who will not exer- 
cise this "repentance" and " faith," for in speaking of the work 
of the Holy Spirit it is said, " We do not affirm that his work is 
irresistible. Man is his own master under Christianity as with- 
out." 3 " Everlasting destiny is determined for every person by 
his acceptance or rejection of Christ." 4 

1 Princeton Essays, 1st series, p. 350. 2 Prog. Orth. p. 143. 3 Ibid. p. 118. 

« Ibid. p. 243. 



Argument on Thirteenth Complaint. 37 

It should be observed here that the atonement in this regard is 
not modified by any reference to election or decrees as to who 
shall be saved by it, for election and decrees must be viewed as 
pertaining to the divine omniscience, by which all events, past or 
future, are seen by God as ever present in his sight, above what 
are now to man the relations of time ; so that God no more elects 
and decrees from all eternity than to all eternity, and because that 
he is ever the same, immutable. That God knows, therefore, from 
all eternity who will reject Christ, before they reject him, as he 
knows this to all eternity after they reject him, furnishes no em- 
barrassment to their acceptance of Christ. Therefore the claim 
made by both of these theories to great progress in theology in 
maintaining a universal atonement has in fact no foundation, as 
considered from the standpoint of Christian theism. From the 
standpoint of pantheism it is otherwise. Here atonement stands 
for the evolution in the human race of Him who is identified with 
the race by Incarnation. Man, being a God-man, at first as an 
emanation from God and pursuant to that kind of divine imma- 
nence which emanation requires ; the Incarnation follows as a 
reinforcement of the divine in man such as to give a sure pro- 
pulsion to that evolution which promises at last the entire absorp- 
tion of every individual of the race into the Divine. In this 
view, sin is a negation, and marks the starting-point of evolution, 
indicating the want of those attainments which are to be secured 
by subsequent development. Instead of sin to be atoned for, 
there is only attainment to be made by evolution. Instead of 
the atonement vicarious, there is an atonement evolutionary ; an 
''atonement universal, absolute." "The extent of the atone- 
ment resides in the personality of Christ." "He is the Uni- 
versal Person," identified with humanity, so that his divinity is 
in nothing more clearly shown than in his perfect humanity — 
the universal man — so that when Christ suffers the race suffers. 
Thus Christ is the life of humanity. Thus it is not what Christ 
does so much as what he is in humanity — its life — his Person 
transfused into humanity so as finally to conform all the race 
wholly and essentially to himself. This is the conclusion to 
which the most, if not all, have come who have accepted consist- 
ently the doctrine of the identity of the divine with humanity in 
the Incarnation, from the time of John of Damascus, who in the 



38 Argument on Thirteenth Complaint. 

eighth century drew up his doctrinal textbook composed chiefly 
of the expressions of the older Fathers of the Greek Church. 1 
Thus, Maurice was consistent in rejecting the doctrine of future 
endless punishment, aud in affirming that all men are adopted as 
the Sons of God through their identity with Christ, so that the 
only function of faith is that by it men at some time, in this or 
the future life, come to discern their identity with the Son of God 
as a fact that had all along been established. 

So John Murray held ' ' the universality of Christ's headship in 
the human race ; a universal atonement made by Christ in organic 
and vital union with every man," and from these universalities 
was consistent in affirming universal salvation. Hence the in- 
consistency of the Andover professors that, while holding this 
doctrine of incarnation and atonement, they admit the possibility 
that some of the human race should finally be miserable : for this 
admission — as Occam said of this Christology in the fourteenth 
century — implies that something of Christ will be finally miserable 
because of his identity with humanity. If Judas, the betrayer, 
went to his own place to be forever miserable, then something of 
Christ, the Betrayed, must go to be forever miserable on account 
of his identity with the nature of the betrayer. 2 To avoid this 
consequence of this Christology in case any of the human race 
should fail " to accept" of Christ, it must be affirmed that all 
will finally accept of Christ. "Progressive Orthodoxy" is in- 
consistent because it does not so affirm, and so plant itself un- 
hesitatingly on the basis of pantheistic universalism. 

Again, " Progressive Orthodoxy" claims to have broken up the 
narrowness of the scheme incident to what it calls " arbitrary 
election" by insisting on " Universal Atonement." It says, " If 
we start within the limitations of an arbitrary election, we have a 
limited atonement and limited work of the Spirit." 3 But if by 
"arbitrary election " it is implied that God knew from all eternity 
in his own mind and thought that some would be saved, and that 
others would not be saved, involving all the consequences direct 
and contingent, then "Progressive Orthodoxy" must, to be 
consistent, affirm this " arbitrary election," unless it can affirm 

iDe Fide Orth. lib. iii. c. 6. 2 Item sequiter quod aliquid de essentia Christi erit 
miserum et damnatum, quia ilia natura communis existens realiter in Christo et in 
damnato erit damnatum, quia in Juda. — Occam, Logica, P. I. c. 15. 3 Prog. Orth. 
p. 116. 



Argument on Thirteenth Complaint. 39 

that God from all eternity knew in his own mind and thought that 
all of the human race would be finally saved. The divine fore- 
knowledge seems to be admitted. It is said that " Humanity 
with Christ in it is propitiated to the divine thought from all 
eternity. It was in the divine purpose from eternity that there 
should be incarnation and atonement." ] Whatever may be said 
then from the historical point of view, as though God's disposi- 
tion was apparently " changed when Christ suffered and died," 
yet in reality, as known to himself, God's disposition had been 
the same from all eternity. Now if it be admitted, notwithstand- 
ing the fact that " humanity with Christ in it is propitiated to the 
divine thought from all eternity " so that " it was in the divine 
purpose from all eternity that there should be incarnation and 
atonement," that some of the race will be finally lost because 
they do not accept of Christ, then it is certain that in the " divine 
thought" and " purpose " there is an election from all eternity of 
those that are saved. Thus "Progressive Orthodoxy " is com- 
mitted to this election and to a limited atonement as relates to 
the thought and purpose of God in his omniscience, and as 
relates to the final result ; while the claim that '« God's disposition 
was changed when Christ suffered and died " rests on the histori- 
cal seeming of things, as in nature the sun seems to rise when 
really it does not change its position. This seeming, taken by 
itself alone, has no place, certainly, in w real theology." 

If, to escape this conclusion respecting election, the Arminian 
view is taken, which admits foreknowledge but denies foreordina- 
tion ; then it will appear that the ordination of things, instead of 
being concurrent in the divine mind with the certainty of fore- 
knowledge, is reached only by a process of evolution in the divine 
thought and will corresponding to the temporal evolution of events. 
But this evolution in the Infinite is a doctrine of pantheism. 

Or, if " Progressive Orthodoxy "will carry out the implications 
of its pantheistic Christology without wavering, so as to affirm the 
final salvation of all men, then it will consistently oppose what it 
calls the limitations of an " arbitrary election," while it affirms a 
universal atonement. This consistency, however, carries "Pro- 
gressive Orthodoxy " beyond the sphere of Christian theism into 
pantheistic, evolution. 

* Prog. Orth. p. 61. 



40 Argument on Thirteenth Complaint. 

Thus the Universal Atonement claimed by the Andover Pro- 
fessors differs essentially from the " General Atonement" of 
Christian theism which is expressed in the Creed of the Seminary 
in the words, " The Son of God, and He alone, by His suffering 
and death, has made atonement for the sins of all men." Through 
the General Atonement, on the basis of Christian theism, there 
is a sufficiency of grace for the salvation of all men, but not in 
such a way as to imply that all men will be saved. But through 
the Universal Atonement according to " Progressive Orthodoxy," 
on the basis of pantheistic Christology, in order to logical con- 
sistency the final salvation of all men must be affirmed as a 
necessity. 

Thus " Progressive Orthodoxy," by its pantheistic Christology, 
in pursuance of its physical and metaphysical philosophy, by fair 
inference neutralizes the Christian doctrine of the atonement as 
taught in the Creed of the Seminary. 

V. In the fifth place, ' ' Progressive Orthodoxy " evinces its sym- 
pathy with pantheism in its treatment of the Scriptures. It does 
not regard the Scriptures as revelation in the highest sense, nor 
in any sense as a permanent and " sufficient rule of faith and 
practice" for all time. They served as revelation to the Jews 
until the Incarnation, and as a record of the beginning of the 
Christian Church. They contain also many things which will 
always remain of great value to the Church as truth pertaining 
to its origin, so that, for example, 

"the views of Christ and of his truth contained in the apostolic Epis- 
tles must, from the nature of the case, always shape the religious and 
moral conceptions of the church. Not that they alone possessed the 
Spirit of wisdom and revelation. He is the Spirit of wisdom and rev- 
elation in every soul in which he dwells, and there have been some souls 
in ages since the apostolic into which He has so abundantly shed the 
radiance of God's truth that they have been the spiritual luminaries of 
their own and following centuries." J " Christ is not only the earthly 
culmination, but also the eternal source and principle, of revelation." 2 
"The whole truth, then, is that Christ is the revealing or manifesting 
principle ; " 3 " The Incarnation is the essential revelation : but the In- 
carnation is more than the presence of the man Christ Jesus on earth, 
and the things he did and suffered. — It is the fact of the union between 
the divine and the human, the awful ' mystery of godliness'; it is the 
relation of this union to the life of man and the life of God." 4 

i Prog. Orth. p. 209. 2 Ibid. p. 34. sibid. p. 43. * Ibid. p. 205. 



Argument on Thirteenth Complaint. 41 

Christ, then, as one with the human race in idea from the first, 
and in reality through the Incarnation, He is the highest revela- 
tion in being subjective revelation in man. In comparison with 
this revelation from the life of Christ subjective within man, the 
objective revelation contained in the Scriptures is of small ac- 
count. They are of some value taken simply as history, as a 
record of events, and as related to those events at the time of 
their occurrence. But these Scriptures cannot be taken as 
authority for all time, and because that, 

The church is ever adding to its knowledge of Christ, and the exe- 
getical process is certainly not the exclusive means of making the 
increment. 1 

Instead of regarding the Scriptures as a Supernatural revela- 
tion communicated by the Spirit, and under the light of the Spirit 
in their application as the only and sufficient rule of faith and 
practice for all time ; it is held that it was 

God's purpose to make this theanthropic Person the center of the 
divine revelation to man. 2 

It is not a creed, however truly representing the Scriptures 
themselves, nor their content, nor indeed what Christ himself did 
or said while on earth : but it is the life of Christ in the race, 
which is revelation. Thus by the evolution of the life of Christ 
within humanity — of Christ as one with the race — revelation is 
continuous and progressive through all time, so that the Church is 
ever adding to its knowledge of Christ, as it could not do by 
applying the exegetical process to the Scriptures under the light 
and efficiency of the Holy Spirit. This evolution of revelation is 
what Pantheism requires. It knows nothing of inspiration as re- 
quired by Christian theism, and cannot use the word intelligently 
since it requires the dualism of the individual Personal God to 
inspire, and man as an individual person to be inspired. Hence 
Pantheism in all its forms has sought to impair the authority of 
the Bible. 

It may be said that there are passages in " Progressive Ortho- 
doxy " irreconcilable with this pantheistic interpretation. These 
passages, however, cannot be reconciled with the main drift of 
thought. They appear as inconsistencies and self-contradictions. 

1 Prog. Orth. p. 212. 2 ibid. p. 233. 



42 Argument on Thirteenth Complaint. 

On this account it has been well said that the Andover Authors 
of "Progressive Orthodoxy" " take back with one hand what 
they give with the other." * Thus it happens, in some instances, 
that what is affirmed in one place is denied, or its meaning 
changed, in another place. There is a lack of clear definition. 
There are instances in which a thing is defined, as though a heav- 
enly body should be called a planet, and yet not so much a planet 
but that it might be a comet. When this peculiarity of style is 
duly considered, it must go far to exonerate from blame the 
most, if not all, of the quotations from "Progressive Orthodoxy" 
alleged to be unfair by its Authors. In explanation of this style 
by one of the Editors of The Andover Review, it is said that 

Much of the phraseology in discussion was used to make immediate 
connexion with existing doctrines, which it was desired to supplement 
or apply. 2 

The aim of ' ' Progressive Orthodoxy " was declared to be the 
endeavor to Christianize or 

Christologize the doctrines passed in review. 

According to this, it would seem that in the discussion of the 
Incarnation the aim was to " Christologize " that doctrine which, 
according to the Andover Creed, affirms that Christ " continues to 
be God and man in two distinct natures and one person forever." 
But because this aim could not be accomplished, since the panthe- 
istic Christology of " Progressive Orthodoxy " could not be made 
to connect with the Christology of Christian theism in the Andover 
Creed, nor be attached to it as a " supplement," or as a form of 
" application," the inevitable result was that, however carefully 
phrased, the language which seemingly accepted the existing 
Christology of the Andover Creed, would not harmonize with the 
language affirming the pantheistic Christology. This professorial 
Editor says that 

The immanence of Christ is an integral part of the conception of the 
divine immanence. It belongs to the Christian idea of God. 

This certainly is a plain statement. Since by " divine imma- 
nence " the Greek immanence is meant, and since the immanence 

i Criticisms on the Andover Movement, by Rev. F. Palmer, in The Andover Review, 
vol. xiii, p. 181. 2 Andover Review, vol. xiii, p. 434. 



Argument on Tldrteenth Complaint. 43 

of Christ is an integral part of the Greek immanence, it requires 
that the Christian theism of the Andover Creed shall be super- 
seded by Pantheism, in order that it may be Christianized, and so 
briug forth from previous obscurity " the Christian idea of God." 
It is a sufficient explanation of this style of taking back with one 
hand what had been given by the other, that it arose from the 
attempt to harmonize things which were essentially foreign to 
each other ; such as the Seminary Creed and the New theology. 
The position of the Authors of ' ' Progressive Orthodoxy " is in this 
respect not altogether unlike that of Clement and Origen when 
they could not withstand the pantheistic tendency of the Alexan- 
drian School by any use of language they might employ in the 
interest of Christian theism, which might seem to imply the per- 
sonality of God, and because that, on the whole, this personality 
both of God and the Logos must be regarded as Ideal rather than 
Real, according to their presentation. Thus admitting all that 
ever has been claimed by the appreciative historian respecting the 
piety, sincerity, and industry of these Fathers, it only shows that 
these qualities, dominated by a pagan philosophy, can never con- 
serve Christianity. 

Again, there is a logical inconsistency in maintaining, as the 
Andover professors do, that a probation for some after death is 
held only as an hypothesis. It has already been shown that from 
the premises involved in the pantheistic incarnation and atone- 
ment, the final salvation of all men is a logical necessity. The 
Authors may refuse to draw this logical inference, but their pupils 
and others will draw this inference if they do not, for it is con- 
tained in the premises. All men have Christ in them by constitu- 
tion, who is the supreme revelation, so that in order to their con- 
scious knowledge of Christ it is only necessary that there should 
be an evolution of the Christ already constituted in them, which 
is certain to proceed either here or hereafter, since it is not con- 
ditioned upon faith, or anything that man can do, as Maurice 
consistently presents the doctrine. 

It is said in ' * Progressive Orthodoxy " that 

we may go so far as to say that it would not be just for God to con- 
demn men hopelessly when they have not known him as he really is, 
when they have not known him in Jesus Christ. 1 

ip.64. 



44 Argument on Thirteenth Complaint. 

And in the Andover Defence, as representing the absurdity of 
supposing that infants who die in infancy can know Christ, it is 
said : — 

That is, they experience in this life " conviction of sin, enlightenment 
in the knowledge of Christ, renewal of will, the Spirit's persuasion, and 
power to embrace Jesus Christ freely offered in the Gospel, pardon and 
acceptance as righteous in God's sight, the imputation of Christ's right- 
eousness which is received by faith alone, reception into the number 
and admission to all the privileges of the sons of God, ability more and 
more to die unto sin and live unto righteousness, assurance of God's 
love, peace of conscience, joy in the Holy Ghost, increase of grace and 
perseverance therein to the end." Blessed infants! But who in his 
senses can think of putting an interpretation on this article which com- 
mits it to such absurdities? * 

Yes; and also "who in his senses" can claim all this attain- 
ment and knowledge of Christ as necessary for every adult in 
order that he may be said to have a Christian probation in this 
life, to say nothing of infants! The "benefits" enumerated in 
the Shorter Catechism are evidently given as a complete summary 
of the highest attainment of the elect in this life, but the attain- 
ment of the highest does not go to prove that a lesser degree of 
attainment may not constitute a genuine probation in this life. 
Calvin says in a letter to Servetus : " I .do not doubt that when 
God removes infants from the world, they are regenerated by the 
secret influences of the Holy Spirit." 2 The infant so regene- 
rated certainly has a Christian probation in this life, and requires 
no other, being renewed by the Spirit whom Christ sent into the 
world. As in a nursery a graft may be inserted into a small 
shoot and then be shortly removed to the permanent garden, or 
the graft may be set in the larger tree and be transplanted later 
under different conditions and environment ; so the infant may be 
renewed by the setting of the new life in its soul and then be 
removed at once to the everlasting gardens, while in the case of 
an adult the renewal may take place under an operation of the 
Spirit better known. But in either case there are no data for 
determining the exact measure of what constitutes a Christian 
probation, so that it may be said of those supposed to have this 
measure that they have a Christian probation, and that those who 
fall short of this measure though in the smallest particular do not 

1 The Andover Defence, p. 13S. 2 Bib. Sac. vol. iii, p. 59. 



Argument on TJiirteenth Complaint. 45 

have a Christian probation. The fact of having a probation can- 
not be established, quantitively, in this way. 

It is related that in India a poor man who had never heard of 
Christianity, and had long sought in vain for relief from his con- 
victions of sin by all forms of penance, came to the conclusion 
that there must be some Being who could be merciful to sinners. 
He resolved to trust in that nameless One of his thought, and 
from that moment found peace. Years after while on a journey 
he came upon a group listening to a missionary who was talking 
about Jesus. While listening, the man exclaimed: "Why, this 
Jesus is the One I have been trusting, who has given me peace. 
I did not know his name, but he is my deliverer from sin." Prob- 
ably no one would say that if this man had died before hearing 
the missionary he could not have been saved : or that in that 
case he did not have a sufficient Christian probation, for he was 
already a man of faith, though, historically, he knew not the name 
of him in whom he believed. There may have been many such 
benighted minds, who have under the mission of the Holy Spirit 
found the relief of faith. There is reason to believe that in 
"convincing the world of sin " the Holy Spirit has done consid- 
erable genuine missionary work in regions where the voice of the 
human preacher of the gospel has never been heard. So long 
as there are any facts indicating that this may be the case, and 
so long as the contrary cannot be shown, there is no ground for 
the assumption that a present probation does not furnish sufficient 
opportunity. Besides, the deeper fallacy of this assumption con- 
sists in supposing that a sufficient probation must, in order to 
meet the demands of equity, furnish an equal opportunity to 
every individual, and thus carry to every one the entire order of 
salvation begun and carried on. Such a probation according to 
the proposed equity must require the scheme of salvation to be 
communicated to every person with an equal measure of informa- 
tion, intelligence, argument, and with equal measure of the Holy 
Spirit ; and also that every person should have in himself the 
same equal measure with all others of mental capacity to under- 
stand, of conscience so as to be susceptible of conviction of sin, 
with the same measure of time for consideration and reflexion ; 
in short, in order to this equitable and therefore fair probation it 
must be such that no one can claim that another has had a better 



46 Argument on Tliirteenth Complaint. 

or different opportunity than himself in any respect. But such 
an equitable probation, or fair chance, is impossible in the present 
varying outward conditions of human life with the different de- 
grees of native human knowledge, moral faculty, and culture. 
Nor does the power to define what is called an equitable proba- 
tion, fair chance, or opportunity, come within the scope of human 
judgment, hence any question that may be raised in respect to 
determining it is only idle dreaming. Furthermore this attempt 
to define Christian probation quantitively, and to fix it within 
mere historical limitations, would require the Scripture to say 
that Christ and the Spirit, to carry on their work, came into what 
is technically called Christendom, whereas it is said that Christ 
and the Spirit came "into the world." It is to the credit of 
Calvinism that it does not presume to define probation quanti- 
tively, or otherwise than to represent it as had in this life, and 
further than that leaving it to Him who worketh where and when 
and how he will. 

Again, any attempt to define probation is logically repugnant 
to the evolution maintained in " Progressive Orthodoxy." For 
when once evolution has a starting point, a terminus a quo, thence 
onward it is an infinite progression, and that is all that can be 
said of it. Its only relation or measure is its relation to the 
infinite, and in that its every movement is described. In the 
Northern Mythology evolution is symbolized under the tree 
Ygdrasil, whose roots fastened in the deepest bottom ground of 
the universe send up its branches from sphere to sphere, arching 
over each in succession in new-formed trunk, thus by trunk and 
branch ever pushing its way from sphere to sphere through the 
illimitable heavens. So evolution in the New theology has its 
terminus a quo, or root, fastened in its pantheistic Christology, 
from whence the race starts forth in its unmeasured course, with- 
out check or reversal by any hypothetical probation or failure. 
It is difficult to conceive why such an hypothesis should be men- 
tioned in " Progressive Orthodoxy" except upon the supposition 
of an attempt to connect itself with a Creed with which it was 
incompatible, through some conjuring with the word probation. 

It is necessary to observe here that the objection is raised 
against any and all arguments drawn from the book " Progress- 
ive Orthodoxy" in support of the " Amended Complaint" : that 



Argument on Thirteenth Complaint. 47 

they must be irrelevant because the book is a thing of the past, 
and therefore the Amended Complaint is now " stale." But 
the book, in respect to its philosophy and its theology pursuant 
to its philosophy, has always been a thing of the past and 
" stale." It appears that its authors and advocates have always 
had some hesitation about calling it New. In their uncertainty 
what to call it, they represent it sometimes as New, and some- 
times as a return to Greek theology, and sometimes as a recovery 
of something, and sometimes as something respecting which men 
are thinking as men never thought before. But whatever it be 
called, the pantheistic elements of its philosophy date back to 
the period when converts to Christianity from paganism under- 
took to graft pagan philosophy upon the theology of the Church, 
which, as Dr. Emerson, late Brown Professor of Ecclesiastical 
History in Andover Seminary, was constrained to say of Origen, 
" Contributed prodigiously to swell the desolating tide that over- 
whelmed the Church in virtual heathenism for a thousand years." x 
The elements of this philosophy appeared in the De Fide of 
John of Damascus, in the eighth century ; again, in more com- 
plete systematic expression by Scotus Erigena in the ninth cen- 
tury ; again, in the revival of Greek philosophy in the twelfth 
century under the influence of the Arabians, in the teaching of 
Averroes and Almaric. This philosophy took the form of Mysti- 
cal Pantheism under Eckhart in the fourteenth century, and found 
expression in the Theologica Germanica which at first attracted 
the attention of Luther, but from whose mysticism he was dis- 
enchanted by his experience with the Zwickau prophets, except 
that in his doctrine of Consubstantiation he held to the real pres- 
ence of Christ's body with the elements of the Sacred Supper. 
This philosophy was revived in the pantheistic system of Spinoza, 
the materials for which had been furnished largely by Giordano 
Bruno from his studies of Greek philosophy. Thence onward, 
this philosophy appears tending sometimes more to physical 
methods, and at other times more to metaphysical methods, in 
the period following Kant, until in the nineteenth century it 
appears in greater force in the speculations of Schelling, and 
reaches, perhaps, its climax, in the grandeur of system, analysis, 
construction, and proportion, as exhibited by Hegel, whence the 

*Bib. Repos.,1834, p. 46. 



48 Argument on Thirteenth Complaint. 

revival of the pantheistic doctrine of the Divine Immanence 
in Greek theology, and the pantheistic Christology of Schleier- 
macher, and others in Germany, with their imitators in Great 
Britain and the United States. The book " Progressive Ortho- 
doxy " is not stale merely because it is six or seven years since 
its publication, for according to some of the principles which it 
inculcates it is more than two thousand years old, so that it 
inculcates " stale " error. 

The reasons upon which abatement of the Complaints concern- 
ing the inculcation of these principles is sought are equally errone- 
ous and " stale." Gentlemen come covered with dust from the 
archives of English Law, pretending to bring authority for the 
details of the administration of a Trust created under and by 
the authority of the State of Massachusetts. But the authority 
which these gentlemen bring has as little to do with the regulation 
of this Trust as has the architecture of Noah's Ark, for it is 
brought on the assumption that The Andover Seminary with its 
Trust was not created, complete, solid, independent, sui generis, 
and as though its methods were not to be expounded according 
to the genius of its own spirit, and as though Massachusetts were 
incompetent for such a creation. In the earlier history of this 
country this assumption finds its counterpart in the sentiment of 
Tories, and is therefore as " stale" as it is un-American. 

But after all, truth is older than error, and therefore remains 
triumphant after whatever repeated assaults, or accumulations of 
new force, error may put in array against it. Hence the truth 
of Christian theism as formulated by Augustine came off victori- 
ous against all the assaults of Pantheism down to the Reforma- 
tion. Therefore Calvinism in its formulation of the same truth 
has stood impregnable since the Reformation before every panthe- 
istic assault. It has stood against these assaults better than 
Lutheranism at its best, as Lutherans themselves agree, and be- 
cause that Lutheranism in its onesided insistence on Christ within 
us, " Christus in nobis," has left the gate open for the subjective 
deceits of Pantheism to rush in and take possession ; while Cal- 
vinism, insisting fully on Christ within us through his presence in 
the efficiency of Grace, insists at the same time just as fully on 
Christ outside of us — "Christus pro nobis" — the Christ ob- 
jective as well as subjective, "Christus pro nobis," as well as 



Argument on Thirteenth Complaint. 49 

" Christus in nobis." Thus Calvinism shuts the gate of its fort- 
ress in defence of the Truth, and makes it impregnable against 
all the subjective conceits, deceits, and insinuations of panthe- 
istic craft of attack. Hence, Dr. Dorner, though unfavorable to 
Calvinism, nevertheless declares that "the system of Calvin is 
preserved from Pantheism." ] 

Thus Calvinism has stood invincible against all pantheistic 
Christologies, and pantheistic doctrines of the Divine Immanence 
fabricated on the continent of Europe, or as recovered from 
ancient times, as the Castle of Ehrenbreitstein has stood upon 
the Rhine protecting the North from the incursion of all invading 
armies from the South. It was to build such a fortress against 
error that the Fathers founded this Seminary, and stipulated that 
every professor should be an Orthodox and consistent Calvinist. 
It has transpired that, contrary to this purpose of the Founders, 
doctrines are here taught incapable of agreement with consistent 
Calvinism, however they may be represented as having such com- 
mon ground with Calvinism, or such support from the Creed of 
the Seminary, as to be only a natural development from that 
Creed. Evidence for this is found in the book entitled "Progress- 
ive Orthodoxy," in the influence which it continues to exert, 
which could hardly be more adverse to the teaching required in 
the Seminary if it were formally received as a textbook, as ap- 
pears from the examinations of students from the Seminary for 
Licensure and Ordination. 

Therefore in concluding my argument on the thirteenth specifi- 
cation of the Amended Complaint, and having, as I believe, sub- 
stantiated it, I must affirm that the respondent, Professor Egbert 
C. Smyth, d.d., in having composed the book, "Progressive 
Orthodoxy," and in being responsible for it, does hold, maintain, 
and inculcate ' ' that a system of physical and metaphysical 
philosophy is true which by fair inference neutralizes the Chris- 
tian doctrine as taught in the Creed of the Seminary." 

i Dorner, on The Person of Christ, div. ii, vol. iii, sec. iii, p. 9. 



ARGUMENT 

Maintaining the Twelfth Charge of the 
Amended Complaint. 



Mr. President and Gentlemen, — There is another specification 
in the amended complaint, in support of which I will, with your 
permission, present some arguments. This is the twelfth specifi- 
cation, which charges that the Respondent, 

holds, maintains, and inculcates that Christian Missions are not to be 
supported and conducted on the ground that men who know not Christ 
are in danger of perishing forever, and must perish forever, unless 
saved in this life. 

This twelfth specification is taken after the thirteenth in the 
order of argument, because the logical connexion of thought 
seems to require it, since the discussion of the thirteenth prepares 
the way for the discussion of the twelfth, and saves the repeti- 
tion of some topics which would otherwise ensue. 

The treatment of this specification requires us to notice the 
near relation of the Andover Seminary to the American Board ; 
the former having been organized and opened for the admission 
of students in 1808 ; while the latter was organized in 1810, and 
sent out its first missionaries in 1812. It is remarkable that the 
institution of the Seminary was at the time when the Holy Spirit 
was interesting the minds of graduates from different colleges in 
the work of foreign missions. It may properly be said that these 
young men furnished the occasion which gave rise to the Board, 
but it should also be said that the idea and plan of the Board 
arose in other minds, among whom it seems to have occurred first 
to Dr. Worcester. Thus, simultaneously, was the missionary 
spirit kindled in the hearts of the young men and in the hearts of 
such men as Worcester, Spring, Evarts, and the Andover profess- 
ors of that time. When on his deathbed Dr. Spring was asked 
what portion of his life gave him the most pleasure in the review, 

51 



52 Argument on Twelfth Complaint. 

he replied : " That I have been permitted to preach the Gospel ; 
that I have been enabled to preach what I believe to be the 
system of truth : and that I have been the unexpected instrument 
of establishing the Seminary at Andover." 1 As he also aided in 
establishing the American Board, it appears that the two institu- 
tions were founded pursuant to one and the same conception of 
the " system of truth." 

Under this conception it was not strange that the first and most 
important element which pervaded the whole policy of the Ameri- 
can Board was " a transcendent estimate of what belongs to 
Christianity in its relations to a future life." 2 In this estimate it 
was considered as an imperative necessity that " essential and 
spiritual Christianity " should be carried to heathen nations in 
order to their salvation, and on the ground that the only proba- 
tion is in this life, and that all who are not saved in this life must 
perish forever. It adds force to this estimate that the doctrine of 
universalism maintaining the final salvation of all men, through a 
post mortem probation in which all would accept of salvation 
through Christ, or be purified from sin by punishment, was dili- 
gently proclaimed. In 1770 John Murray came from England, 
thirty-eight years before the founding of Andover Seminary, and 
had traveled extensively preaching his new doctrine of univer- 
salism which in its essential features respecting Christ's headship 
of the race does not differ from the pantheistic Christology main- 
tained in " Progressive Orthodoxy " by the present Andover pro- 
fessors. The first universalist church was organized in this coun- 
try by Murray in Gloucester in 1780, twenty-eight years before the 
founding of Andover Seminary. The first convention of univer- 
salist ministers and parishes was held in 1785, and assent to what 
is known by universalists as the " Winchester Confession of 
Faith " was given and the confession adopted in 1803 : which 
was but five years preceding the founding of the Seminary at 
Andover. Thus, while universalism was extensively proclaimed, 
and more especially according to the doctrine of Murray ; in 
opposition to Murray's doctrine, the doctrine of this life as the 
only probation was placed in the Seminary Creed and in the foun- 
dation of the American Board. 

1 Half -century Memorial Volume, A. B. C. F. M. p. 112. 
2 Ibid. Dr. Hopkins's Discourse. 



Argument on Twelfth Complaint. 53 

It is important to observe here that interest in missions has 
been effective only upon the Calvinistic doctrine of the present 
life as the only probation. Whatever may have been said ad- 
versely to Calvinism as to promoting missions, or quoted as 
adverse to missions from any claiming to be Calvinists, it is 
nevertheless true that missions are indebted to Calvinism for the 
conception that organizes them, and the nerve that sustains them. 
It was under the auspices of the Calvinistic Baptists that Carey 
became impressed with the duty of giving the Gospel to the 
heathen, and under whom he was sustained in his ever memor- 
able work of founding the Baptist mission at Serampore. It is 
also significant that the Baptist historian accounts for the decline 
in numbers of the Baptists in Holland because of " the spread of 
Socinian doctrines among them, by which all the fervor of life 
and missionary enterprise was lost." J 

Now, it is in the face of this lesson from history, and in oppo- 
sition to the Creed of the Seminary and to the doctrine accepted 
in the founding of the American Board, that the professorial 
authors of " Progressive Orthodoxy " project their assumptions, 
first, that there are those who do not have a sufficient knowledge of 
Christ in this life: and second, that for their benefit there is a 
probation after death, and thus assume that probation does not 
cease with this life. The argument in favor of this assumption 
is that, since the atonement is for all men, therefore all men must 
at some time hear of it, and come to know Christ so as to accept 
him or to reject him before the final judgment, so that if any do 
not come to know him in this life then there must be opportunity 
for such to come to this knowledge after death. Then on the 
assumption that there are, in fact, those who do not have the 
requisite knowledge in this life, it is claimed that a probation for 
such after this life is in the highest degree probable. 

Now, in order to test the validity of these assumptions, it is 
necessary to ask what is meant by saying that 

every man will know Christ in his sacrifice before he meets him in 
judgment. 2 

What is meant by saying that there are millions who 

will never hear of the Gospel as a provision of mercy for them, 3 

i Johnson's Cyc. — Baptists. 2 Prog. Orth. p. 139. 3 Ibid. p. 180. 



54 Argument on Twelfth Complaint. 

unless upon the assumption that there is for them a probation 
after death which shall furnish them with the opportunity of hear- 
ing the Gospel. This question is important because there is 
certainly a wide difference in the matter of hearing and knowing 
Christ in his sacrifice and atonement, between those of the 
smallest and those of the greatest degree of this hearing and 
knowing. The story is familiar of the poor ignorant Scotch- 
woman, who, when catechized by her minister respecting his ser- 
mon on the previous sabbath, was unable to give the text or any 
part of the sermon, and who, when asked what good she supposed 
his sermons would do her, if when she had heard them she could 
remember nothing about them, said that though his sermons dis- 
appeared from her mind as the water disappeared which she 
poured upon the cloth which she was whitening, yet was her soul 
like the cloth made whiter thereby. Certainly, what this woman 
had heard and known of Christ was vastly less than what 
her distinguished countryman, Thomas Chalmers, had heard 
and known of Christ. There was an almost infinite difference 
in degree, between their hearing and knowing. And yet it is to be 
hoped that none of the present Andover professors represented 
in "Progressive Orthodoxy," while admitting that Chalmers had 
heard and known of Christ, would deny that the poor woman had 
not also a saving knowledge of Christ. But, notwithstanding this 
difference in degree between the hearing and knowing of this 
woman and of Chalmers, it cannot be affirmed that the limit of 
the scale of difference is reached either way, at the knowing of 
the woman or at that of Chalmers. As, had Chalmers lived 
longer his knowledge of Christ might have attained a higher 
degree, so the woman's knowledge of Christ was even less at an 
earlier stage of her Christian experience. Nor is it inconceivable 
that there may have been another person whose knowledge of 
Christ was even less than that of the woman, who was neverthe- 
less sealed by the " Spirit of Truth" as having a saving hearing 
and knowing of Christ. Because there is a spiritual hearing and 
knowing from the inward sense not dependent upon the external 
word, and yet not opposed to that word because animated by the 
same " Spirit of Truth," the lowest point in the scale of the 
effectual working of the Truth cannot be determined, therefore 
infants may be regenerated, according to Calvin, while it is possi- 



Argument on Twelfth Complaint. 55 

ble for a heathen to trust in a Deliverer from sin, as shown in the 
argument on the thirteenth specification. For these reasons it can- 
not be proved that there has ever been a man who did not have 
sufficient probation in this life, and because it cannot be proved 
but that Christ may be known to men spiritually — through the 
efficiency of the Holy Spirit — who do not know him historically 
by the external Word. This is consistent with New England the- 
ology. It is maintained by one of its ablest exponents, that 
" Men maybe saved, who never exercised specific faith in the 
atonement. Men may not have all the applications of the atone- 
ment, and yet may be under the provisions of the atonement. 
All can be saved." " The Holy Spirit is represented as working 
on the hearts of Christians in the same manner as in inspiring 
writers of the Bible." x Nor is this working on the heart confined 
to those only who have become Christians, for the Holy Spirit's 
work is to convince the world, or men in the world, of every 
variety of condition and age, and endowment of faculty, and 
with such efficiency that men can accept or, reject intelligently 
that measure of truth which the Spirit impresses upon them as 
suited to their capacity. Otherwise it could not be said that the 
Spirit convinces or reproves the world of sin. In this convic- 
tion the Holy Spirit deals with the conscience, so that his con- 
victing agency may be recognized upon the conscience of the 
heathen as it bears witness to the " law written in their hearts." 2 
In remarking on this passage Professor Stuart, in his Commentary 
on Romans, says that " Those commit a great mistake, then, who 
deny that men can have any sense of moral duty or obligation, 
without a knowledge of the Scriptures. The Apostle's argument, 
in order to convince the Gentiles of sin, rests on a basis entirely 
different from this," — though in no such way as to supersede the 
need of a written revelation. If the Gentiles had doubts and 
difficulties about some of the plainest principles of morality, it 
was because " their minds were blinded by their passions. Hence 
the voice within them was not listened to ; but this does not prove 
that God left himself without sufficient witness among them. 
The Apostle most plainly and fully asserts that he did not." 
From this it follows that, since God has left himself with sufficient 
witness among the Gentiles, it must be a mistaken theodicy that 

1 John 16 : 8-14. Notes taken from Dr. Park's Lectures. 2 Rom. 2:15. 



56 Argument on Twelfth Complaint. 

requires God to grant them a probation after death, as an amend, 
as though he had not left himself among them with sufficient 
witness in this life. 

Besides, if the Gentiles are blinded by their passions so they 
do not listen to the voice within, so some men are blinded under 
the clearest light of the written revelation, and where the Gospel 
is proclaimed in demonstration of the Spirit and of power. It is 
evident that conversions do not take place in proportion to the 
means employed to convert men and turn them to Christ. Under 
the most conspicuous means of Grace, while some have truly re- 
pented of their sins, others by resisting these means have hard- 
ened their hearts, and have become as notorious in their rejection 
of Christ, and in their profligate life, as the means were distin- 
guished for inducing them to become Christians. It is in striking 
contrast with such facts that men are sometimes converted by, 
what to human view, is the feeblest instrumentality conceivable. 
Under whatever instrumentality, it must be said that God exerts 
an influence that can be resisted by all ; but which all will not 
resist. It is not certain but that the man who resists divine in- 
fluence under a feeble instrumentality would resist that influence 
with even greater pertinacity under the most powerful instrumen- 
tality. The heathen who allows his passions to make him blind 
to the witness which God gives of himself to him in this life, 
might evolve from his passions a still more obdurate blindness 
under a probation after death. This does not go to prove that in 
the divine economy it may not be expedient for God to give a 
clearer revelation of himself to some people than any witness of 
himself given to the heathen, but it does go to prove that the wit- 
ness given of himself to the heathen is sufficient, so that no pro- 
bation after this life is needed to vindicate the divine justice and 
wisdom. It goes to prove also that sin is, under no conditions, 
simply a misfortune into which man has fallen unconsciously, and 
because he always sins intelligently, and of choice, so that he 
repents under the feeblest instrumentality, and hardens his heart 
against repentance under the most powerful instrumentality, while 
there are instances in which men have confessed to having resisted 
the most powerful array of motives to repentance, and to having, 
years after, chosen to repent under a comparatively feeble impres- 
sion of motive. Thus all circumstances combine to show that 



Argument on Twelfth Complaint. 57 

man is not a sinner for the want of a fair chance to become right- 
eous, and that with the fairest chance conceivable it is not certain 
that even then any man would choose to be righteous. 

It is worthy of notice that even in temporal affairs those who 
do not have what is considered a fair chance, many times succeed 
the best, while those having superior opportunities complain most 
of not having a fair chance and so pretend to throw the blame of 
their worthless lives on circumstances over which they have no 
control. Of this there is sufficient confirmation in the many 
instances where men have risen from poverty to wealth, and learn- 
ing, by self-denying industry and economy, while others, for the 
lack of these virtues and not choosing to practice them, have 
descended from wealth to poverty through their choice of vice, 
and succeeded to none of the advantages of learning, though in 
possession of every facility for such success. These facts in tem- 
poral affairs, taken in connexion with corresponding facts in spir- 
itual things, furnish ground for the discredit of a probation after 
death in order that any of the human race may have a fair chance, 
as well as for affirming that in the light of Scripture as well as of 
reason the present life is the only probation. 

It is asserted by these Andover professors, as the most natural 
conclusion, that 

those who do not know of God's love in Christ while they are in the 
body will have knowledge of Christ after death. 1 

This assertion must be taken as including all infants, in respect 
to whom there is reason for denying the conclusion that they need 
probation after death in order to a saving knowledge of Christ. 
Calvin's remark on the regeneration of infants has already been 
quoted. Again, when Servetus concluded from the words of 
Christ, — 

He that believeth not the Son shall not see life, but the wrath of God 
abideth on him, — 

that, 

infants who are incapable of believing, remain in their condemnation : 

Calvin replied, 

that in this passage Christ is not speaking of the general guilt in 

iProg. Orth.p. 93. 



58 Argument on Twelfth Complaint. 

which all the descendants of Adam are involved, but only threatening 
the despisers of the Gospel, who proudly and obstinately reject the 
grace which is offered to them ; and this has nothing to do with infants. 
I likewise oppose a contrary argument ; all those whom Christ blesses 
are exempted from the curse of Adam and the wrath of God ; and as it 
is known that infants were blessed by him, it follows that they are 
exempted from death. 1 

And when Servetus quotes as Scripture that 

whosoever is born of the Spirit heareth the voice of the Spirit ; 

Calvin replies that, 

though we were to admit it as a genuine text, yet Servetus could infer 
nothing more from it than that believers are formed to obedience as the 
Spirit operates within them. But that which is affirmed of a certain 
number it is wrong to apply equally to all. 

Calvin also says in this connexion : — 

I must again repeat, what I have so often remarked, that the doctrine 
of the Gospel is the incorruptible seed, to regenerate those who are capa- 
ble of understanding it ; but that where, by reason of age, there is not 
yet any capacity of learning, God has his different degrees of regener- 
ating those whom he has adopted. 2 

Through failing to perceive the principle in the remark of 
Calvin that 

that which is affirmed of a certain number it is wrong to apply equally 
to all ; 

Pelagius, more than a thousand years before Servetus, was in 
doubt as to what would become of infants. This doubt was 
largely, if not entirely, through applying to infants as a class the 
same rules and requirements as to those who having come to years 
of intelligence and moral perception were able to hear and receive 
the Gospel. Thus Pelagius must say of infants in the future 
state : — 

Where they are not, I know, where they are, I do not know. 3 

He knew that infants were not in heaven, which, according to 
his doctrine that infants were born as sinless as was Adam by 
creation, involved the inference that God excluded innocent beings 
from the kingdom of heaven. As Servetus infers that infants 
who are incapable of believing remain in their condemnation : and 

i Inst. iv. 16. 31. John 3 : 36. 2 Inst. iv. 16. 31. 3 Neander, vol. ii, p, 669. 



Argument on Twelfth Complaint. 59 

as Pelagius infers that such infants are not in heaven : so the 
Kespondent in "Progressive Orthodoxy" infers that such infants 
must have a probation after death in order that they may be capa- 
ble of knowing Christ. In either case the logic is the same. The 
error consists in applying equally to all that which is affirmed of 
a certain number : in applying to infants the method of knowing 
Christ which is possible only for adults. As Calvin did not make 
this mistake in logic, he had no occasion for accepting the doc- 
trine of Servetus or Pelagius, or of guessing that there might 
be a future probation for infants. 

If it be said, however, as seems to be implied in " Progressive 
Orthodoxy," that under Calvinism none are saved but in pur- 
suance of 

arbitrary election and reprobation : 
so that the heathen 

from their very birth are doomed to everlasting woe : 
and that thus occasion is furnished for 

that cruel conception of God which means that vast multitudes of his 
children can by no possibility be saved : x 

it may be justly said in reply that Calvinism merits no such 
caricature. At any rate, whatever may be said of some who 
claimed to be Calvinists, no occasion is given for this caricature 
in that "consistent Calvinism" which is represented in the Sem- 
inary Creed. It is held as an axiom that a human court is com- 
petent to determine the election or ground upon which a decree 
shall be issued, in any case, when the court has in its possession 
all the facts in relation to the case. In respect to human destiny 
the Great Judge of all has all the facts from the beginning by 
virtue of his Omniscience. In the beginning, then, this Judge 
was as well prepared to issue any decree as he could be after 
what men call history has run its course on earth. To deny this 
is to deny the Divine Omniscience. God knows from the begin- 
ning everything that takes place in time, and therefore everything 
that takes place was certain to take place. But this furnishes no 
ground for saying that anything takes place by an " arbitary 
election " within the meaning of fatalism ; for, according to the 

1 Prog. Orth. pp. 106-108. 



60 Argument on Twelfth Complaint. 

" consistent Calvinism of New England theology," " the certainty 
of human action is distinct from its necessity ." 1 Though it 
should be certain that an individual or a class of the human race 
will be lost, this would not prove, according to Calvinism, that it 
is necessary that they should be lost. There is, then, no decree, 
nor " absolute election," which requires that any be lost of neces- 
sity. And this applies to infants as well as to adults, so that 
there is no " absolute election " standing in the way of the regen- 
eration of infants when God removes them from this life. 

But if infants are thus regenerated, then, for them, a future 
probation is unnecessary, whether in Christendom or Heathen- 
dom. Besides, if infants are saved in this way because incapable 
of being saved in any other way, then those adults, whether in 
Heathendom or Christendom, who are as incapable as infants, 
whether from idiocy or other cause, may be saved in the same 
way as infants. Granting this, considerable abatement must be 
made from the statement of the professorial authors of " Progress- 
ive Orthodoxy," that all the heathen must of necessity be lost 
unless there be a probation for them after death. For those who 
are not incapable as infants, it is certainly " fair " that they 
should be judged according to the light which they have and not 
as though they had all the light of Christendom. If it be said 
that the Gospel requires specific faith in Christ, and that the 
heathen are incapable of this faith and so are of necessity with- 
out hope, the reply of Baxter to this objection may be made, 

that the disciples of Jesus became regenerate men before they 
believed that he was to die on the cross ; faith in the atonement is 
necessary where the atonement can be known, but where this blessed 
truth cannot be known, there God never exacteth from men according 
to what they have not, but only requires a good use of what they 
have. 

Baxter says further that, 

when penitent, the heathen have been regenerated by the Holy Ghost, 
on the ground of Christ's atonement, although they have never heard 
of their Redeemer or their Sanctifier. God often blesses men without 
their knowledge. 2 

Thus the heathen are under the "law of Grace" no less than 
other men, though they have not heard of the operation of that 
law to the extent that other men have. 

1 Bib. Sac. vol. ix. p. 185. 2 Ibid. vol. xii. p. 368. 



Argument on Twelfth Complaint. 61 

But there is authority more apposite in this discussion because 
it is from the New England theology, and so related to the 
Creed of the Seminary to which the professors have subscribed 
and which they have promised faithfully to teach, though contrary 
to that they advocate a future probation. As an instance of this 
authority, 

Dr. Bellamy teaches, in a volume which Edwards recommended, 
that the heathen are without excuse because they enjoy " sufficient 
means of knowledge " ; that God's law is on a perfect level with man's 
"natural powers and natural advantages"; that "if God looks upon 
the advantages of the heathen as sufficient, no wonder that he so often 
speaks of the advantages of his own people as being more than barely 
sufficient, even although they enjoy only the outward means of grace 
without the inward influences of the Spirit " ; " and thus we see how all 
mankind have not only sufficient natural powers, but also sufficient out- 
ward advantages to know God, and perfectly conform to his law, even 
the heathen themselves." 1 

Dr. Smalley says : — 

It must, I think, be granted that we do generally suppose a man's 
present duty cannot exceed his present strength, suppose it to have 
been impaired by what means it will. 2 

Dr. Smalley often speaks of a 

want of opportunity as excusing the sinner from blame. 3 

Thus, 

the doctrine of the "New England theology, is that any powerless- 
ness, in the original, literal and proper meaning of the word, is incom- 
patible with obligation. 4 

It follows, then, according to the New England theology, that 
because the heathen enjoy " sufficient means of knowledge," they 
do not require a probation after death in order to secure the 
degree of knowledge necessary to their salvation. 

But the Andover professors tell us in " Progressive Orthodox} 7 " 
that when it is admitted that 

conscientious heathen living up to the knowledge they have are 
actually saved through Christ and his atonement, although they have 
no knowledge of the actual Christ nor of his sacrifice for the sins of 
the world ; 5 

1 As quoted by Dr. Edwards A. Park, Bib. Sac. vol. ix, p. 179. 2 Sermon on Moral 
Inability, p. 5, ed. 1811. 3 Sermon on Natural Ability, p. 38, ed. 1811. * Bib. Sac. 
vol ix, p. 182. e Prog. Orth. p. 87. 



62 Argument on Tivelfth Complaint. 

It is perilously akin, in its postulates, to the Deism of the last cen- 
tury, which maintained that the knowledge of reason and the commands 
of conscience are sufficient, and which held Christianity to be not a 
supernatural redemption, but only a superior system of moral teaching. 1 

But admitting that this view is perilously akin to Deism, it does 
not follow that the remedy for this peril is found in the Pantheism 
of " Progressive Orthodoxy," for Pantheism is no remedy for 
Deism. It is true that many have thought, or pretended to think, 
otherwise, who, with their eyes fixed on Deism as the only gulf 
to avoid, have stumbled backward into the abyss of Pantheism. 
This has happened in Germany to some, in advocating what is 
called a " mediating theology," who seemed to think that the 
safe path must lie between the extremes of Deism on the one 
hand, and of Pantheism on the other hand : between the doctrine 
of the Divine transceudence and the doctrine of the Divine im- 
manence. Such a path is untenable, and because it supposes 
there is hostility between transcendence and immanence, so that 
the truth is found only in mediation. But, according to Christian 
theism, there is no such hostility, for the transcendence and im- 
manence are involved in one and the same idea — the Divine 
immensity. God is everywhere present, both within the created 
universe and beyond it, so that there is a verbal convenience in 
speaking of his presence in the created universe as his omnipres- 
ence, or immanence : and of his presence in all space outside of 
the created universe as his transcendence. But these distinctions 
involve no real distinction in the Divine essence, according to 
which the view that the heathen have a sufficient probation in this 
life furnishes no approach to Deism which affirms only the Divine 
transcendence, and thus denies the Divine omnipresence in the 
created universe. This, in the light of Christian theism, is equiv- 
alent to saying that there is no God, and because that any 
proposition that denies the Divine immensity in the whole or in 
part serves Atheism. - So the Greek immanence, which differs 
from the omnipresence of Christian theism by maintaining the 
identity of the Divine and the human in the world, thus involving 
a real distinction between the Divine essence as existing in the 
world, and the Divine essence as existing beyond the world, is, 
when carried out, equivalent to saying that there is no God, and 

iProg. Orth. p. 89. 



Argument on Twelfth Complaint. 63 

because this division and confusion of the Divine essence involve 
the denial of the Divine immensity as to indivisibility of essence. 
Now, while both Deism and Pantheism are errors, not merely by 
exaggeration of a truth, but in their essential denial of truth, so 
that no path of compromise laid out between them can consist 
with truth ; still there is a sense in which Deism is the lesser of 
the two errors. It is easier for some minds to pass at once from 
Deism to Christian theism than to pass at once from Pantheism 
to Christian theism. Of this there is an illustration in the Annual 
Eeport of the American Board of Foreign Missions for 1857, in 
which Mr. Ballantine represents Hindu pantheists taking Deism 
as an intermediate step in their departure from Pantheism, the 
next step from Deism to Christianity being taken more easily by 
them than to have passed at once from Pantheism to Christianity. 
Practically, however, there are points of agreement between 
Deism and Pantheism in their hostility to Christian theism. Thus 
they agree in denying that there is any need of, or supernatural 
value in, the Scriptures as a written revelation. They may make 
this denial on different grounds. Deism may assume that man has 
been created with such efficiency of natural faculty that he needs 
no objective supernatural instruction like that of the Bible consid- 
ered as a supernatural product. On the other hand, Pantheism 
may assume that God is so within man, immanent, and that Christ 
is such an integral part in the Divine immanence as to be the 
supreme revelation of God to men, the subjective revelation, so 
that there is no need of the objective revelation in the Bible, or 
if there is any need of that, care must be taken not to place it 
above or on the same level with the supreme subjective revelation 
of God and Christ immanent in man. Let the Bible be put on 
the level of ordinary history, without any claim of being inspired, 
absolute, inerrant, or as being the only sufficient rule of faith 
and practice, and then the more moderate Pantheism may speak 
of it as a revelation in the sense that everything contains a reve- 
lation. Thus in the rejection of the supernatural value of the 
Scriptures, Pantheism becomes an ally of that Deism which it 
professes to oppose with tireless energy : of which Neander says 
well that 

the Deistic and Pantheistic theories, which, although they arise from 
directly opposite modes of thought, agree perfectly in opposing super- 



64 Argument on Twelfth Complaint. 

naturalism, must deny in the outset what the supernatural-theistic views 
hold to be essential to the idea of a genuine world-redeeming Christ. 1 

Thus, in minimizing the supernatural value of the Scriptures 
and asserting that the supreme revelation consists in the imma- 
nence of Christ in the human race, the doctrine of the Andover 
professors, as represented in "Progressive Orthodoxy," is more 
than "perilously akin" to Pantheism, for it is Pantheism in its 
Christology. And because of the coalition of Pantheism with 
Deism against the Scriptures, the doctrine of these professors is 
itself " perilously akin to Deism." It is indeed affirmed by them 
that 

The Bible is the supreme authority for man, because it embodies the 
Gospel of the only begotten Son of God. 2 

But they say also in speaking of Christ that 

He is the spirit of wisdom and revelation in every soul in which he 
dwells, and there have been some souls in ages since the apostolic in 
which he has so abundantly shed the radiance of God's truth that they 
have been the spiritual luminaries of their own and following centuries. 3 

Again they say that 

The Incarnation is the essential revelation: but the Incarnation is 
more than the presence of the man Christ Jesus on earth, and the things 
he did and suffered. — It is the fact of union between the divine and the 
human, the awful u mystery of godliness"; it is the relation of this 
union to the life of man and the life of God. 4 

The professors also say that by the Incarnation Christ is 

The eternal source and principle of revelation. — In the Incarnation 
he has carried revelation to its highest conceivable stage and mode, how- 
ever augmented it may be in degree and power. 5 

And again they say that Christ has such an affinity for all men 

that Christ has an organic relation to the race. 6 

From these statements it appears that Christ by the Incarnation 
is identified with the humanity of Heathendom as much as with 
the humanity of Christendom, for he is identified with universal 
humanity and because he is hereby the eternal source and princi- 
ple of revelation in universal humanity. Now, it is consistent 
with this view to allow that this revelation of Christ in humanity 

i Life of Jesus Christ, p. 12. 2 Prog. Orth. p. 256. 3 Ibid. p. 209. 4 Ibid. p. 205. 
5 Ibid. p. 34. e ibid. p. 52. 



Argument on Twelfth Complaint. 65 

appears in different degrees of manifestation somewhat according 
to environment. The apostles having a favored environment 
manifested the revelation of Christ as identified with their 
humanity in a high degree. Others since the apostles have mani- 
fested this revelation in an unusual degree. Those whose envi- 
ronment is less favorable than that of the apostles or any since 
their time are incapable of this manifestation of the revelation of 
Christ in their humanity through the Incarnation, except in a 
smaller degree, for otherwise the most difficult question for the- 
odicy must arise, in which it would be charged that God had 
implanted a principle of revelation in humanity without giving 
that principle any possible environment for its manifestation, in 
some instances. If this were true, then God might as well not 
have implanted the principle of revelation at all in humanity, in 
some instances. But the Incarnation, as affecting universal 
humanity, will not allow of such an exception. It follows, then, 
that a fuller manifestation of the revelation of Christ in humanity 
requires, in any case, not probation, but improved environment. 
Probation, as a test limiting environment either to a specified time 
or to any particular degree of opportunity, is all out of the ques- 
tion, for it must be conceded from this point of view that envi- 
ronment will be improved without limit until the revelation of 
Christ in universal humanity shall have been so manifested in all 
the race as to secure universal salvation. 

It is a favorite expression of modern pantheists that " God is in 
embryo in every man, though in different degrees of develop- 
ment," hence there is an ever becoming manifestation of God in 
man. It is hard to find any appreciable difference between this 
view and that advanced in "Progressive Orthodoxy." 

When the Andover professors say that 

the Bible is the supreme authority for man, 

to be consistent they must only mean that in this life the Bible is 
included in the best environment, while after death there will be 
a larger and better environment than any in this life with the 
Bible included. But on these premises it cannot be affirmed that 
any environment is insufficient, in its time and place. The Divine 
is already in man, and the evolution of* the Divine in man will, 
throughout all ages, be appropriate in degree to the environment. 



66 Argument on Twelfth Complaint. 

Neither can the Divine in man escape condemnation, if man is 
ever condemned at any day of judgment, as was shown in our 
discussion of the thirteenth specification. In the New England 
theology a man is recognized as a Christian as soon as there is a 
single spark of righteousness in him. This spark, however, is 
found only in those who through faith and repentance experience 
the renewing of the Holy Spirit, those not having the Scriptures 
experiencing this renewing by the Holy Spirit in a manner suited 
to their condition. But, according to the authors of " Progressive 
Orthodoxy," this spark is not communicated through faith and 
repentance in the renewing of the Holy Spirit, but is communi- 
cated to the entire human race through the Incarnation, and is to 
manifest itself by evolution, somewhere, either in this life or here- 
after, in appropriate degree : so that the office work of the Holy 
Spirit as the renewer and sanctifier, according to the Seminary 
Creed, is ignored. This evolution is impelled by the " Christ 
within." All objective forces must be discredited in order to 
avoid what is called a "mechanical view." Thus the Bible has 
no objective value for it is not, even, 

what Christ said or did, 

in such sense as to be taken as the foundation for ideas or doc- 
trine, for it is the life of Christ already in men " alone" that has 
value. So when it is said that 

the Holy Spirit in his work represents the place of motive in 
Christianity, 1 

it cannot be intended that he represents the place of objective 
motive in bringing home to human thought 

what Christ said or did ; 

as doctrine and truth, for this is ruled out of the question. It 
must be meant therefore that the Holy Spirit somehow represents 
the place of subjective motive within man, presents Christ as 
motive from within the human constitution, in which the Divine 
and the human are identical. But Christ himself being already 
within man, any work of the Holy Spirit in this sense to bring 
Christ to man's thought from within is unnecessary and improb- 
able, according to the doctrine of the Incarnation held by the 

iProg. Orth.p. 118. 



Argument on Twelfth Complaint. 67 

professors in "Progressive Orthodoxy," for Christ is already 
identified with the human constitution, and therefore with the 
power of human thought. To say that 

the function of the Holy Spirit is to take the things of Christ, and 
show them unto men, 1 

is certainly a useless piece of " machinery," since Christ is 
already within men, unless the Holy Spirit and Christ, as within 
the race, are taken to be identical, thus impairing the doctrine of 
the Trinity. 

When it is said that the 

process through which the Christian is developed : — is all expressed in 
the personal act of repentance toward God, and of faith in the Lord 
Jesus Christ ; 

and that 

the personal appropriation of Christ in his life and death constitutes the 
sinner a Christian ; 2 

the language is such that it may signify nothing more than that 
the Christ Incarnate in the race is evolved, or " developed " through 
a certain u process," to which the terms " faith," "repentance," 
and " personal appropriation " are of no consequence, except on 
the supposition that they are used to make* a show of some con- 
nexion with the Seminary Creed, by using some of the terms of 
that Creed. For all that can be said, and the only thing that can 
be properly said upon this theory of Incarnation and atonement, 
is, that every man is already a Christian, potentially, by having 
Christ within him : and that here or hereafter in the ages to come 
he will be developed in Christian life by the Christ within him. 
To admit that any soul of the human race will not be thus devel- 
oped, and therefore be forever lost, is to admit that so much of 
Christ as is identified with that soul must be identified with that 
soul in its final condition. The New theology, in stoutly asserting 
the identity of the Divine and the human in its Christology, not 
only in " Progressive Orthodoxy," but also in later publications, 
has committed itself irretrievably to the logical conclusion from its 
premise that if any of the human race are finally miserable some- 
thing of Christ must also be finally miserable. 

i Prog. Orth. p. 65. 2 Ibid. p. 143. 



68 Argument on Twelfth Complaint. 

A recent Editorial in The Andover Review, by one of the 
Authors of " Progressive Orthodoxy," contains the following 
passage : — 

Why could not the Infinite Being have so united himself to the life of 
a creature made in his image, as to have that life in its limitations as 
one of the forms of his own life? The dogmatic affirmation that he 
could not do this, and that the Church, in believing that he has done so, 
believes that something took place which cannot possibly have taken 
place, ought to have little weight with thoughtful minds. 1 

Now, it is obvious that if the Infinite Being 1 has so united himself 
with any creature — as with the human nature of Jesus, so as to 
have the life of the creature Jesus in its limitations " one of the 
forms of his own life," then to the extent of the creature life the 
Infinite Being and the creature are identical. If also through 
the Incarnation the human " race is reconstituted," so that " the 
immanence of Christ is an integral part of the conception of the 
Divine immanence," 2 — immanence being taken here in the Greek 
sense, — so that the life of universal human nature is one of the 
forms of the life of the Infinite Being, then the identity of the 
Divine with the human is maintained in harmony with the require- 
ments of monistic Pantheism. When it is said that the affirma- 
tion of those who oppose this view " ought to have little weight 
with thoughtful minds": those who make this affirmation would 
not seem to be called on to treat those whom they oppose with 
such extreme delicacy as to withhold any logical arguments which 
the discussion might require. 

It may be asked of those who have such " thoughtful minds," 
what advantage is gained by the advocates of future probation, 
over those whose views they oppose, in consistency of thought? 
They allege that one class of those whose views they oppose 
maintains that if any of the heathen are saved it must be by 
what they call " arbitrary election." But the odium of what they 
call "arbitrary election" is removed when it is replied that 
through the Divine omniscience all the facts in every case are 
known to the Divine mind, so that there is, in reality, no such 
thing as " arbitrary election," because that election is in harmony 
with the knowledge of facts. 

The professors at Andover who advocate a future probation 

1 Andover Review, July, 1892, p. 82. 2 Ibid. vol. xiii, 434. 



Argument on Twelfth Complaint. 69 

allege that another class whose views they oppose are incon- 
sistent in supposing that any of the heathen can be saved in this 
life without a knowledge of the historic Christ : but they them- 
selves are inconsistent in attaching so much importance to a 
knowledge of the historic Christ, after minimizing the Scriptures 
and the objective history of Christ in them, while at the same 
time they magnify the subjective Christ within all men, whether 
in Heathendom or Christendom. 

Again, these advocates of future probation virtually allege 
the inconsistency of those who believe that probation in this life 
is sufficient since even the heathen are to be judged only accord- 
ing to the measure of light and knowledge which they have : and 
because, they say, that the heathen cannot have a sufficient 
objective motive for right action ; but they themselves are incon- 
sistent in requiring a future probation in distinction from that of 
this life in which any of the human race may become Christians, 
when in fact all men are already, potentially Christians, through 
the indwelling Christ, so that their Christian development is, 
even now, assured. 

Again, the Andover professors, in advocating a future proba- 
tion, allege that those who believe that probation in this life is 
sufficient are inconsistent in supposing that any can be saved 
through the Christ of whom they have not heard ; but they them- 
selves are inconsistent in admitting that any can be lost when 
Christ is declared to be in, and organically one with, the whole 
human race. Their claim for a future probation is inconsistent 
also because it requires them to separate those who, according to 
their assumption, know Christ in this life from those who do not 
know Christ in this life by an arbitrary line, so that all on one 
side of this line will have a future probation, while all on the 
other side of this line do not need a future probation, and this 
while all on both sides of this line have the same Christ within 
them. According to the premise any such distinction between a 
present and a future probation is absurd, for in this case proba- 
tion is only another name for pantheistic evolution which is with- 
out division or limitation, whose movement is as real now as it 
ever can be. 

Yet again, the Andover professors who maintain the hypothesis 
of a future probation characterize the salvation which some of 



70 Argument on Twelfth Complaint. 

their opponents suppose men may have in this life without 
historic Christianity 

as salvation by magic. 1 

But they themselves hold " a salvation by magic" — the " magic 
of mysticism." This magic rests on the pantheistic assumption 
of " a mutual harmony of all that exists, and that all things exist 
by God in nature as the immediate force that forms and sus- 
tains them." Thus " celestial magic" is defined as man in com- 
munion with God as the inmost and identical principle, and force, 
of man's own being. This is magic reveling in subjective vaga- 
ries of the imagination to the exclusion of the outward and 
objective world. In respect of Divine things it conceives of an 
internal illumination in the soul which is the light of God as 
identical with the soul. Hence Eckhart could say : — 

There is in the soul something uncreated, and exalted above all that is 
created. 2 

According to Neander this pantheistic mysticism arose because 

the longing for union with God was not ever accompanied side by side 
with a consciousness of the self-subsistence of the creaturely spirit, and 
the infinite exaltation of God above the world, with a consciousness of 
sin standing in contrariety with the holiness of God, with a humility 
never forgetting for a moment the strict line that separates the creature 
from the Creator. 

Hence in this mysticism there was 

a thoroughly anti-Christian tendency, hostile to everything super- 
natural, every intimation of a God above the world; a tendency which 
contained, first in the form of mysticism, the germ of absolute Ration- 
alism and the deification of reason. 3 

Now, this magic of mysticism is found in the doctrine of the 
Andover professors as represented in " Progressive Orthodoxy," 
because in its conception of union with God " the consciousness 
of the self-subsistence of the creaturely spirit, is not accom- 
panied side by side with the consciousness of the infinite exalta- 
tion of God above the world " ; and because that " the strict line 
which separates the creature from the Creator is forgotten," and 
because that its conception of the Divine immanence either makes 
the human reason identical with the Divine reason, or, what is 

1 Prog. Orth. p. 133. - Neander, vol. v, p. 393. 3 Neander, vol. v, pp. 392, 393. 



Argument on Twelfth Complaint. 71 

the same in result, deifies human reason, and thus becomes an 
ally of absolute rationalism ; so that the plan of salvation pro- 
posed on these principles of mysticism is a u salvation by magic." 
But the salvation supposed possible for the heathen, which is 
opposed in " Progressive Orthodoxy," is not a " salvation by 
magic," for it is consistent from the standpoint of Christian 
theism, under which there is no identification of the human with 
the Divine, while the salvation is wrought under the efficiency of 
means compatible with the agency of the Holy Spirit. Nor, as is 
objected, does this salvation take place " wrought out independ- 
ently of human consciousness," for in every heathen in whom 
this salvation should be effected there would be the human con- 
sciousness of joy and "the peace of God which passeth under- 
standing," 1 as in men more enlightened. If it were said that in 
this case salvation would be wrought out independently of that 
high degree of human consciousness evinced in the experience of 
Chalmers, the statement could be accepted. But when it is 
said, without qualification, that in this case salvation would be 
"wrought out independently of the human consciousness," the 
statement must be denied, for, according to the grounds on which 
this salvation is supposed to take place, no man is saved except 
upon the conscious action of his own will in choosing salvation, 
according to the measure of his capacity and understanding. 

Again, the advocates of this future probation are inconsistent 
in laying down pantheistic principles respecting probation, and 
presuming to carry them out according to Christian theism. 

And finally, the Andover professors, in advocating this future 
probation, are inconsistent in charging those with agnosticism 
who believe that in this life there is sufficient probation, while 
they, after all, are themselves chargeable with agnosticism, since 
their future probation rests on an unproven hypothesis, and is 
incapable of proof from either Scripture or reason. So long as 
they themselves fail to prove their hypothesis and are compelled 
to fall back on agnosticism in respect to it as their pet theory, it 
must be taken as a poor vindication on their part which consists 
in affirming, without proof and in the face of glaring inconsist- 
encies, that their agnosticism is only something infinitesimally 
less in degree than the agnosticism of those whose views they 

i Phil. 4: 7. 



72 Argument on Twelfth Complaint. 

oppose. It has been received as an axiom that "ignorance is 
incompetent to raise an objection." If this is true, it may be 
confidently asked, from the standpoint of Christian theism, what 
propriety there can be in assuming to have discovered a wonder- 
ful vindication of the justice of God in the hypothesis of a 
future probation, meanwhile confessing ignorance or agnosticism 
as to the truth of this hypothesis. 

But without arguing the merits of this future probation in 
detail, further than to show that its claim is useless as compared 
with the view that this life furnishes a sufficient probation, we 
come to the main argument, which is that this future probation 
cannot be taught, either as a doctrine or as an unproven hypothe- 
sis on the Andover Foundation, except as a perversion of the 
Creed of the Seminary, for, " the doctrine of probation limited 
to this life lies imbedded in the original basis of the Seminary." * 
It is unnecessary to spend any time in proving the truth of this 
statement, since the exhaustive arguments of Dr. Park on the 
Associate Creed, and of Dr. Dexter on the eleventh specifica- 
tion, are already in the case before your Honorable Board. 

It follows from these arguments that this attempted perversion 
of the Seminary Creed contemplates also the perversion of the 
principles which lie at the foundation of missions as represented 
in the American Board by the common Founders of both the 
Seminary and the Board, and thus sustaining the charge in the 
twelfth specification which we are now arguing. 

This perversion is sought under the insidious claim that candi- 
dates for appointment under the American Board should be allowed 
the freedom to believe in this future probation, the absurdity of 
which appears in the fact that those who claim to have " thinking 
minds," and who come to the front in this claim, are, after all, 
not sure that there is such a probation. If they were sure of it, 
if there were no agnosticism at bottom on their part, there would 
be less inconsistency in this claim, though then there could be no 
authority for them to teach their hypothesis contrary to the pro- 
visions of the Seminary Creed. Freedom to believe what is con- 
fessed to be established by argument and accepted by honest 
convictions has generally been considered as quite sufficient to 
answer the demands of liberty. But when in the name of free- 

1 Dr. Edwards A. Park, on The Associate Creed, p. 65. 



Argument on Twelfth Complaint. 73 

dom it is claimed that one must have liberty to believe in an 
unproved hypothesis, of which there is no probability that it ever 
can be proved, this claim seems to arrogate the right of a man to 
be a simpleton, rather than the right and freedom to accept and 
profess the certain conclusions of a truly "thoughtful mind." 
We have heard of the man who was so timid that he was always 
afraid that he should be afraid, but this timidity seems to be 
outdone by those who are in this case so deeply exercised by 
timidity that they are desperately afraid that they may not have 
liberty to believe what is not so, or, at least, what they them- 
selves confess is not proved to be so. In an article under the 
head of "Compromising on Agnosticism," written by one of the 
editors of " Progressive Orthodoxy," and published in The Chris- 
tian Union, November 19, 1892, it is said, in respect to the policy 
of the American Board as expounded by its President, that his 
words nowhere affirm "The Right of Opinion." The writer 
makes the distinction between opinion and doctrine to consist in 
this, that "a doctrine belongs to the formulated substance of the 
Gospel. It is a part of the message. It is to be preached. An 
opinion belongs to the philosophy of religion. It has its place, in 
the form of a theory or explanation, in the interpretation of 
Christianity especially as related to those problems which lie 
somewhat outside the region of absolute knowledge." This dis- 
tinction is defective in that the line which separates opinion from 
doctrine is not drawn with the requisite sharpness. According to 
the standard authorities, "A doctrine is anything held as true: 
anything laid down as true by an instructor or master, hence the 
doctrines of the Gospel, the doctrines of the Bible." But " an 
opinion is what one thinks, as distinguished from what one knows 
to be true ; a judgment founded on evidence that does not pro- 
duce knowledge or certainty." In this clear and sharp distinc- 
tion opinion does not lie " somewhat," but altogether " outside " 
the region of absolute knowledge, outside of knowledge in any 
respect as " certainty." 

Now, while it is conceivable that one might hold this distinction 
in the abstract, yet it cannot be supposed that practically any 
considerable number — if indeed any — would or could hold it in 
respect to preaching the doctrines of the Bible, without asserting 
the right of opinion in such a way as to encroach upon the right 



74 Argument on Twelfth Complaint. 

of doctrine. This encroachment is seemingly provided for when 
it is said by the Author of this article that opinion has its place in 
the form of "explanation" or " interpretation." Accordingly 
the preacher may be supposed to declare the doctrines of the 
Bible as absolute truth, knowledge ; and then to resort to whatever 
opinion, heathen or otherwise, for the " explanation" and " inter- 
pretation " of these doctrines. Thus, though it be said as in this 
article that "we do not speak of believing an opinion," that " we 
apply that term naturally to doctrine," yet, in explaining and 
interpreting doctrine by opinion, it is possible that as a result 
there would be more belief in opinion than in doctrine. Doctrine 
might be confounded by opinion. In the abstract it might be 
conceived, as stated in the article, that " there is no reason why 
an opinion may not be held clearly, firmly, and honorably, without 
any infringement on the province of doctrine." But opinion 
cannot be held so, " honorably," if it must have license to domi- 
nate doctrine by interpreting and explaining it. The Protestant 
view is that the Scriptures should not be explained by things 
foreign to them, but that they should be expounded in harmony 
with their internal teaching ; that, in case of any obscurity, " each 
text of the Holy Scriptures ought to be explained by other and 
clearer texts." This method treats the Scriptures honorably and 
makes their doctrine clear and certain. But the method of 
expounding the doctrines of Scripture by uncertain opinion con- 
founds them. The doctrines of Scripture are made subservient 
to the extraneous opinion of those who give primal authority to 
human reason, or to the authority of the Church, to the specula- 
tions of Deism, to the vagaries of that mysticism which rejects 
the Scriptures in whole or in part and affirms an internal 
revelation from God in every man, or to the platitudes of 
Pantheism. 

There is an instance of confounding biblical doctrine by phil- 
osophical opinion in a sermon preached by Henry Ward Beecher, in 
November, 1882, advocating what he called "Christian Pantheism," 
in which he said that " the whole march of history is the evolution 
of the heart of God in the world," that " the whole world is but 
God's garment," and that at Mars' Hill " the apostle Paul spoke 
authenticating a Poem older even than he was preacher, when he 
said, ' The God in whom we live and move and have our being' ; " 



Argument on Twelfth Complaint. 75 

thus making the apostle authenticate the Pantheism of Cleanthes 
the Stoic, when if Cleanthes had been at Mars* Hill he would have 
learned, in the words of Conybeare and Howson, that "it was 
no pantheistic diffusion of power and order of which the Apostle 
spoke, but a living centre of Government and love — that the 
world was ruled by the providence of a personal God — and that 
from the proudest philosopher repentance and meek submission 
were sternly exacted." Now, as it was claimed in Plymouth Pulpit 
that St. Paul authenticated the Pantheism of Cleanthes, it is not 
strange that this progressive Pulpit should require the American 
Board to appoint, as missionaries, men who claim the right to 
authenticate the Pantheism of India and China, and thus follow, 
what is falsely claimed to be, the example of St. Paul. Nor is it 
strange that this should be required by the advocates of the New 
theology at Andover, under the claim of " the right of opinion." 
The requirement goes to show that both Pulpit and Theological 
Seminary may be sufficiently rich in opinions, but poor in Chris- 
tian doctrine. But when once the distinction between doctrine 
and opinion is rightly made, this requirement is shown to be a 
piece of sophistry. The work of the American Board is to preach 
the doctrine of the Gospel to the heathen, according to what the 
Gospel itself claims as doctrine, and not what may be any man's 
mere opinion of the Gospel : this doctrine as expounded in the 
Gospel, and not what that doctrine may be as interpreted by 
somebody's uncertain opinion gathered outside of the province of 
doctrine. It is all the same whether such opinion comes assum- 
ing the logic of a philosophy, or whether it be only the dream of 
a delusive hypothesis. In short, the Board is justified in its pres- 
ent policy, on the admission that opinion cannot be preached, 
for it is the function of the Board to preach doctrine, and not to 
allow that preaching to become entangled with " vain philosophy " 
through the sophistry that claims an illegitimate right of opinion. 1 
Much is said, by those who claim this right of opinion, of the 
virtues of ''sincerity" and "frankness" which they have in 
maintaining the " courage of their convictions," but the utility of 
such courage seems doubtful when associated with what, after all, 

1 The article referred to appeared some time after this argument had been prepared 
with the expectation that it would be read before the Board of Visitors, and is now 
noticed for its fitness as illustration. 



76 Argument on Twelfth Complaint. 

are not real convictions. Whatever latitude might be granted to 
this freedom and courage as being simple and therefore harmless, 
it could not be tolerated in the Seminary because opposed to the 
Creed. The claim that within the Seminary the advocates of 
future probation have as much freedom to urge their unproven 
hypothesis as the Founders of the Seminary had to urge that this 
life furnishes a sufficient probation, and to make this a part of the 
Creed, is a false claim, legally and morally. Outside the Semi- 
nary, and not as professors within it, and free from the contract 
to teach what the Creed of the Seminary prescribes, these pro- 
fessors might say, as they do, respecting future probation : — 

We both demand liberty to hold it, and decline to admit superior ortho- 
doxy on the part of those who hold another opinion, — l 

but to say this while occupying professorial chairs in the Seminary, 
after having solemnly subscribed to the Seminary Creed, is, instead 
of making a demand for righteous liberty, to make the defiant dec- 
laration that in this case they — the professors — will act contrary 
to the restraints of both law and morality. 

Morally it is a false claim that, in respect to future probation, 
candidates for appointment under the American Board should be 

welcomed without scrutiny as to their theological opinions, 2 

and thus pervert the American Board by making of it an instru- 
ment for publishing and promoting future probation. 

There is no force in the apology that those who reverently claim 
the right to hold this hypothesis will make no bad use of it among 
the heathen if appointed by the Board, or that they will be silent 
in respect to it in their missionary work, for, if the hypothesis is to 
be held so impracticable, it is hardly possible to conceive that a 
truly reverent mind should regard it, under such conditions, as of 
the least consequence. It is also inconceivable that a man should 
be reverently strenuous for leave to hold this hypothesis, unless 
with the secret conviction of its truth, and the conviction of its 
practical utility, such as to warrant his teaching it on the first 
opportunity. Suppose that a man with these convictions were 
appointed a missionary to the heathen, and should put his convic- 
tions in practice : it may be asked of what advantage it would be 
toward securing the conversion of the heathen. When in the 

i Prog, Orth. p. 109. 2 Ibid. p. 188. 



Argument on Twelfth Complaint. 77 

seventh century king Radbod represented to the missionary that 
he was prepared to receive Christian baptism, "but was first desir- 
ous to learn whether on arriving at heaven, he should find there 
his forefathers also," the bishop, undoubtedly, made a mistake 
in telling him so positively that his forefathers, "having died 
without baptism, had assuredly been condemned to hell." To 
this Radbod said: "What business have I then with a few poor 
people in heaven ; I prefer to abide by the religion of my 
fathers." 1 It is easy enough to see that if this bishop had been 
a believer in future probation, and had assured Radbod of it to 
relieve his mind in respect to his fathers, Radbod would still have 
been willing to cast his lot with them, and trust to the future pro- 
bation for himself. In consistency with the doctrine that this 
life furnishes a sufficient probation as held by the founders of 
the American Board, Radbod could not have made this pretext 
for rejecting Christianity. 

In general, whatever might be gained in securing an apparently 
increased number of converts among the heathen by carrying to 
them the notion of future probation, with its affiliations with 
Eastern Pantheism, it must result in paganizing Christianity 
instead of Christianizing paganism. Missionary societies that 
would carry the Gospel of Christ to the heathen are not called on 
to permit their missionaries to compromise the Gospel by any con- 
cessions to heathenism. There was a sufficient trial of this 
method by the Jesuits in the seventeenth century. They inter- 
preted the doctrines of paganism so as to soften and diminish 
their opposition to the truth of the Gospel, at least in appear- 
ance. They used all their art and zeal to persuade the Indians 
that there was a great conformity between their ancient theology 
and the new religion they were called on to embrace, in which 
they made a false representation of both. They gave a spurious 
account of the ancient religion of the Chinese, representing that 
the teaching of Confucius differed almost in nothing from the 
doctrine of the Gospel, and that Jesus Christ had been known 
and worshiped in their nation ages ago, which they could have 
done only on the pantheistic notion of the Logos, which prevailed 
in heathendom from "the shores of the Yellow Sea to the Illis- 
sus," as related by Milman and referred to in the discussion of 

1 Neander, vol. iii, p. 44. 



78 Argument on Ticelfth Complaint. 

the thirteenth specification. This was understood by the Domini- 
cans, who, in opposition to the Jesuits, affirmed that the ancient 
philosophy of the Chinese was full of blasphemy and impiety, 
and that, in respect of the Being of God, "it confounded the 
Divine nature with that of the universe." ] As future probation 
involves this confounding of the Divine Nature through pantheis- 
tic Christology, its approbation in the smallest degree by the 
American Board were to inaugurate the missionary polic} 7 of the 
Jesuits, a policy not likely to receive the support of intelligent, 
reverent, and devout Protestants, notwithstanding the example of 
Clement in adopting the " doctrine of a progressive development 
and course of purification after death," so as to furnish some 
ground of consolation to heathen converts " with respect to the 
fate of their ancestors who had died without faith in the Gos- 
pel." 2 Since Clement's doctrine was derived from heathen phil- 
osophy, while the same is true of Origen, who, says the historian, 
" everywhere shows a disposition to accommodate Christian doc- 
trines to heathen philosophy, and to make the difference appear 
as small as possible," 3 thus furnishing an example for the mis- 
sionary policy of the Jesuits, as well as a desirable authority for 
the professorial authors of "Progressive Orthodoxy"; and in 
view of the struggles of Protestantism with Pantheism, and above 
all in view of the spirit of the Founders of this " Sacred Semi- 
nary " — as they loved to call it — and the foundation upon which 
they built it, and the missionary use for which they designed it ; 
in view of all this it is difficult to conceive that any " thinking 
mind " impelled by purity of moral purpose should presume, in 
this Seminary, to demand liberty to hold the hypothesis of future 
probation, and to use it as an instrument to dominate the Amer- 
ican Board in the interest of this hypothesis. 

That theosophists in this country, who are also pantheists, 
denying that the Scriptures are a divine revelation, should claim 
to have immediate communications from God through divine illu- 
mination within their own personal consciousness, and as spiritu- 
alists adopt a phase of the old Pythagorean doctrine of the trans- 
migration of souls, should also find a charm in Esoteric Buddh- 
ism and consider it an improvement upon Christianity, is not 

1 Mosheim's Eccl. Hist. vol. v, pp. 8, 22, 28. 2 Neander, vol. i, pp. 655, 656. 3 Bib. 
Repos., 1834, p. 45. 



Argument on Twelfth Complaint. 79 

remarkable. But when it is attempted to improve Christianity in 
giving it better adaptation for Christian missions by compromising 
it with the speculations of theosophy or of Buddhism, and this 
by professors in a Seminary whose Creed they solemnly accept in 
its palpable teaching that the only and sufficient probation is in 
this life ; this is too remarkable for explanation if it must be 
maintained that the authors of this attempted improvement are 
strictly men of sound learning, wisdom, and honor. In view of 
what is called theological progress in the nineteenth century, it is 
a grave question whether that, as theosophy is effecting a union 
with "Esoteric Buddhism," and the Pantheism of the West is 
finding its counterpart in the Pantheism of the East, the Christian 
doctrine of this Seminary must, in the craze for union, be twisted 
into this unity in order to become most effective in the propaga- 
tion of Christian missions ; whether the old experiment of the 
Greek theologians must now be repeated of attempting to carry 
the Gospel of Christ to the heathen and make of it a missionary 
success by receiving in turn from the heathen their pantheistic 
philosophy in order to incorporate it into the Christian doctrine of 
the Church. 

There is a sense in which this transaction is an infringement on 
the rights of various classes of people. " In the eye of the 
law," says Dr. Park, " the Andover Seminary is ; a charity' for 
certain classes of men ; and its funds cannot be legally diverted 
from the interests of these classes to promote the interest of 
opposing classes." Among other classes mentioned, "Andover 
Seminary," continues Dr. Park, "isa charity for all those friends 
of Foreign missions, Congregational or Presbyterian, who may 
desire that young men be excited to missionary zeal by the par- 
ticular system of doctrines, and by the particular doctrines of 
the system taught in the Creed." l Now, this class has an inter- 
est in, and a legal right to, the benefits of this charity. Any 
measure that deprives them of these benefits is an infringement 
of their legal rights. Without considering these rights, the per- 
version of the doctrines of the Seminary Creed is a grave offence, 
but that offence is aggravated by its action in depriving this class 
of the enjoyment of their rights. It is no answer to say that 
this class may be small in comparison with the larger number who 
*Dr. Edwards A. Park, on The Associate Creed, p. 41. 



80 Argument on Twelfth Complaint. 

are pleased with the perversion of the doctrine of the Seminary, 
— even if that number were large, — for the rights of this class, 
however small it might be, comparatively, do not rest on the 
caprice of majorities, or the shifting moods of popular sentiment, 
because they are guaranteed by the statutes of the Seminary 
which constitute it as a charity in their interest. Any attempt to 
raise a majority among the churches against this interest, or to 
fortify the perversion of the doctrines of the Seminary in its 
bearing upon missions by building up a constituency of the 
churches in its favor through securing their acceptance of pastors 
committed to the hypothesis of a future probation, with the view 
also to gain a controlling influence in the administration of the 
American Board, may compare well with the low scheming of 
political tactics, but it is at the same time an aggravated offence 
against that law which guarantees to a class protection in their 
rights independent of all such scheming and agitation. Besides, 
this scheming is in contravention of the declaration required of 
every person elected a Professor in this Seminary in the words : 

I will consult the good of this institution, and the peace of the churches 
of our Lord Jesus Christ, on all occasions. 1 

When such a contravention of law and of rights is proposed 
under the cry for freedom, the counterpart of that freedom, how- 
ever fascinating the cry, is found in the cry for freedom made by 
the pantheistic Libertines in the middle of the sixteenth century, 
who, denying the supreme authority of the Scriptures, declared 
that they were guided by a higher revelation, an inward light, and 
that consequently all civil and ecclesiastical order was not only 
useless but at variance with Christian Freedom. 2 

Thus, Mr. President, and Gentlemen of The Reverend and 
Honorable Board of Visitors, I think that I have shown that the 
Respondent, Professor Egbert C. Smyth, d.d., does hold, main- 
tain, and inculcate, in opposition to the Creed of the Seminary, 
as alleged in the twelfth specification, to wit: "that Christian 
missions are not to be supported and conducted on the ground 
that men who know not Christ are in danger of perishing forever, 
and must perish forever unless saved in this life " ; and I claim to 
have shown this by reference to " Progressive Orthodoxy," a book 

* Wood's History, p. 293. * Bib. Sac. vol. ii, p. 737. 



Argument on Twelfth Complaint, 81 

for which the Respondent is responsible as its editor, composer, 
and publisher. 

Besides, sustaining the complaints which I have argued on this 
occasion, I claim that I have also sustained the seventh, eighth, 
and tenth complaints against the Respondent, argued before your 
Honorable Board on a former occasion. 

In concluding my service as one of the complainants in behalf 
of those Alumni of the Seminary whom I represent, it gives me 
pleasure to express my satisfaction in submitting the issues of 
this case to your decision, for I am persuaded that you, Gentle- 
men, are fully sensible of the responsibility resting upon you in 
having it in your power to preserve this Sacred Seminary intact as 
constituted by its Founders, and that if it shall not be so pre- 
served, then the responsibility is also yours. 

Finally, what I have desired for myself in the service rendered, 
may I not also with equal fervor desire for you : that the Lord 
may grant you help, such, that in coming to a decision in the case 
now pending, you shall conform to his righteous will, and receive 
from him finally the plaudit, 

Well done, good and faithful. 



ARGUMENTS 



REV. JOSHUA W. WELLMAN, D.D. 



INTRODUCTION. 

Mr. President, and Gentlemen of the Board of Visitors, — The 
supreme question in the Andover Case is a moral question. It is 
this : — Is it right for a Professor in Andover Seminary, once in 
every five years to declare solemnly and religiously his belief in 
the theology formulated in the Andover Creed, at the same time 
solemnly and religiously promising to "maintain and inculcate" 
that theology, and then during the intervening period of five 
years "maintain and inculcate" another and a so-called "new 
theology" which antagonizes the said Creed? In other words, 
is it a righteous course of action for a Professor, in Andover 
Seminary, while supported by its funds and aided by its prestige, 
to defend and teach, not the theology of its Creed, but his own 
substitute for it, called by him " Progressive Orthodoxy," and to 
do this, too, when he has voluntarily placed himself under impera- 
tive and sacred obligations to teach exactly the theology of the 
Seminary Creed, and to teach nothing opposed to that Creed ? 

This question in morals does not seem to be a very hard one to 
understand, nor a very difficult one to answer. Yet this is the 
transcendent question in the now famous Andover Case. True, it 
implies a second question, which is strictly theological. But the 
moral question is supreme. The theological question is subsidi- 
ary, yet must of necessity be investigated and decided, in order 
that a true decision of the moral question may be reached. 

The Theological Question. 

The theological question, however, is not primarily whether 
the " new theology," called "Progressive Orthodoxy," is true or 
false. Nor is it whether " the Andover theology," that is, the 
theology of the Andover Creed, is true or false. These questions 
in themselves are of high moment, and at a proper time and 
place ought to be discussed and settled, and they doubtless will 
be ; but they are not the primary theological questions in the 
Andover Case. 

The theological question which is now before your Reverend and 

85 



86 Introduction, 

Honorable Board, and to which your Board alone can give a final 
and authoritative answer, is this : — Whether " Progressive Ortho- 
doxy" is so identical with, or in such harmony with, the theology 
of the Andover Creed that it can be held and taught by an Andover 
Professor in perfect consistency with the solemn declaration and 
promise he has made in taking the Creed, and without any viola- 
lation of the unalterable Constitution and Statutes provided by 
the Founders of the Seminary? If the decision shall be that 
"Progressive Orthodoxy" is not identical nor in harmony with 
the Seminary Creed, but is in irrepressible conflict with it, then 
comes of necessity the irrefutable answer to the great moral ques- 
tion. And that answer is this : that it is a flagrant wrong, and 
if consciously and wilfully persisted in, it is deliberate dishon- 
esty, to maintain and inculcate "Progressive Orthodoxy" on the 
Andover Foundations. In other words, the Andover question, 
which is being argued before you, though twofold, is supremely 
a moral question. And this high moral question cannot be 
evaded on the part of the defendant by any jugglery of words, 
or by diverting your attention to personalities, literary criticisms, 
and questions of personal liberty, nor by wasting time in raising 
and discussing through months and years any other trivial side- 
issues, but must be faced squarely and answered clearly and 
unequivocally. Nor can such a momentous moral issue be dis- 
missed on the ground of some technical informality in the pro- 
ceedings of your Board. No honorable man, accused of ques- 
tionable conduct, will deign to take advantage of such informali- 
ties for one moment, but will demand as imperatively as the com- 
plainants do, that, without hindrance or obstruction of any kind, 
the issue shall be honestly presented and honestly met, and that 
then a decision shall be rendered without fear or favor upon the 
merits of the case. Until this is done the Andover trouble can- 
not be ended. Such moral issues will never down until they are 
settled in accordance with truth and righteousness. 

No Charge of Conscious Dishonesty. 

We wish, however, to say at the outset, and once for all, that 
we do not affirm or charge that the defendant in this case is 
conscious of wrong doing. We know nothing about his con- 
sciousness or his conscience. But what we do say is this, that if 



Introduction. 



87 



he is holding and teaching speculations or hypotheses, dogmas or 
doctrines which are diametrically opposed to, and subversive of, 
doctrines of the Andover Creed and of consistent Calvinism, 
which he certainly has promised, on his honor as a man of truth 
and a Christian, to u maintain and inculcate," then, whatever his 
own conscience may say, by the common standard of morals, or 
at the bar of public conscience, he must and will stand condemned 
as guilty of wrong and dishonorable action. 

Now how far have we progressed in the examination and de- 
termination of these questions? What is the present status of 
the Andover Case ? 

Misrepresentations . 

It has been said repeatedly, in public and in private, by men 
who were supposed to speak with authority, and who therefore 
should have spoken the truth, that the decision of the Supreme 
Court rendered in October, 1891, finished the Andover trial; that 
by that decision all questions in this controversy were settled ; 
that all litigation was ended, and that full freedom had at last 
been gained for, and even guaranteed to, the new-departure Pro- 
fessors in this Seminary. And woe has been denounced upon any 
man who should ever again attempt to deprive these Professors of 
the great and priceless freedom which they have thus won. 

No New Freedom Gained. 

These repeated misrepresentations would deserve no notice, 
but for this, that such loud and triumphant language implies, if it 
implies anything, that the new-departure Professors are now 
possessed of some priceless freedom which they did not have 
previous to the decision of the Supreme Court, that by that de- 
cision they were released from some unjust and cruel bondage to 
creed or statute, to visitorial or other power, under which they 
previously suffered. 

But we venture to affirm that these Professors are now in pos- 
session of no more freedom in this Seminary than they were 
before the decision of the Court was given. What is this great 
freedom which it is claimed they have gained ? Freedom to do 
what? They have not a particle more liberty to break their 
promises or to violate the Constitution and Statutes of the 



88 Introduction. 

Seminary than they had before ; not a particle more liberty to 
introduce a new or an old theology which contradicts in any par- 
ticular that of the Creed. They have gained from the Court no 
freedom whatever to resist the authority of the Board of Visitors 
or to defy its decisions, although at vast cost to the Seminary 
treasury the most strenuous and prolonged efforts were made to 
obtain this freedom. On the other hand, they now have just the 
freedom, no more and no less than that which they declared them- 
selves perfectly satisfied with when they voluntarily accepted their 
professorships, subscribed to the Creed, and promised that they 
would " religiously conform to the Constitution and Laws of the 
Seminary." More freedom than this they have no moral or legal 
right to demand. If any professor in this Seminary, under hon- 
est convictions, or in conscience, feels constrained to promulgate 
doctrines and speculations which antagonize the Andover Creed, 
then every dictate of common honor and honesty, to say nothing 
of Christian principle and obligation, requires him to vacate his 
chair at once, and go where he can teach his recently adopted 
beliefs and theories without any breaking of promises or any 
perversion of trust funds. 

Decision of the Supreme Court. 

We also venture to affirm, in opposition to repeated and public 
declarations to the contrary, that the recent decision of the Su- 
preme Court has not finished the Andover Case ; that it has not 
ended litigation, if any more shall be found necessary to a faith- 
ful execution of this great and sacred trust ; that it has not 
settled any of the great theological and moral questions which 
are at issue in this case ; and that it has not vindicated Professor 
Smyth as to a single charge made against him. So far is this 
Andover trial from being finished, that all the amended charges 
which the complainants preferred against Professor Egbert C. 
Smyth, d.d., in 1886, are still pending, and all the theological 
questions connected with these charges are still before the Visitors 
awaiting their decision. 

Eight of the particular charges, as the complainants think, 
were proved by the evidence and arguments presented at the 
commencement of the trial of Professor Smyth in December, 
1886. Your Reverend and Honorable Board, Mr. President, also 



Introduction. 89 

deemed this proof, in the case of at least three particular charges, 
ample and decisive, and consequently removed Professor Smyth 
from his professorship in Andover Seminary. 

Cause of Delay in Legal Proceedings. 

Why, then, this prolonged continuance of the Andover Case? 
Not simply the appeal which Professor Smyth saw fit to make 
from your decision to the Supreme Judicial Court in this Com- 
monwealth, but chiefly the large and needless accumulation of 
side-issues raised by the Professor and by his supporters, the 
Board of Trustees, is responsible for the loug and costly continu- 
ations of this trial, extended, as it already has been, over nearly 
six years. Had it been the dominant purpose of all parties con- 
cerned to try this case upon its merits, so as to ascertain what 
can, and what can not, be rightfully held and taught by Profess- 
ors on these Andover Foundations, and had it been the high aim 
of both the Boards which are intrusted with the administration of 
this Seminary to be truly and greatly helpful to each other, that 
so they might the more effectually guard these Foundations 
"against all perversion, or the smallest avoidance" of the true 
design of the Founders, according to the Founders* statutory re- 
quirement, the whole trial might have been completed in less than 
one sixth — perhaps in one twelfth — of the time which has already 
been consumed, and at the cost of only a small fraction of the 
more than two scores of thousands of dollars which have now 
been expended. 

The present resumption of the trial, however, by the Board of 
Visitors, and your summons to the Complainants to appear before 
you at another hearing, afford us opportunity to emphasize some 
of the evidence and arguments already presented, to add other 
evidence and arguments, and to present proof of some charges 
in the Amended Complaint which were not substantiated by argu- 
ment at the trial before your Board in 1886. 



THE PARTICULAR COMPLAINTS. 

We come now to the consideration of the specific charges 
found in the "Amended Complaint" which is before the Board 
of Visitors. 

Criticisms Presented by Professor Smyth. 

The defendant has severely criticized the written form in 
which these charges with the specifications under them were made. 
He has affirmed that they " are not certain or definite," " are 
fatally defective," and " too indefinite to require or enable" him 
to answer them. We have no need, Mr. President, to consume 
your time in demonstrating the groundlessness of these criticisms ; 
and this for two reasons. First, we are not here before you to 
engage in any such petty literary discussions ; and, secondly, the 
defendant himself long before he was through with his argument 
made at the beginning of this trial, gave abundant evidence that 
he understood perfectly well all the charges, both the general and 
the particular, which the complainants endeavored to substantiate ; 
and thus he unwittingly confessed that his strictures upon the 
form and language of the charges were fictitious and unwarranted. 

He has also animadverted repeatedly and at much length upon 
the manner in which citations were made by the complainants 
from the writings of the accused professors. It is true that some 
typographical mistakes, and perhaps a few other minor errors, 
were not corrected in the proofs. When copies of the citations 
which were made by the two complainants now before you went 
from their hands, all omissions of words, phrases, and sentences 
had been scrupulously and properly indicated ; and in other 
respects it is believed the extracts from ' ' Progressive Ortho- 
doxy " and other writings had been correctly copied. But for 
some reason no proofs were returned to the complainants ; and 
when the " Amended Complaint" appeared in print, the proper 
indications of omissions in some of the extracts were lacking, 
and a few other mistakes were noticed, none of them, however, of 

90 



Tlie Particular Complaints. 91 

more importance than some which we have noticed in the cita- 
tions made by the accused professors themselves. The quotations 
were not " unfair," as is charged, and "misleading," except so far 
as they had been made so in the original writings from which they 
had been copied. Nor were they "twisted" and "garbled," as 
the defendant charges. They were intended to be made fairly 
and accurately, and, with the exceptions already referred to, for 
which the complainants were not responsible, it is believed they 
were so made. We deny the right of the defendant to dictate to 
the complainants the length of their extracts or the order in 
which they should be arranged. There is no orderly succession 
in the subjects discussed in the book entitled " Progressive Ortho- 
doxy." They are thrown into the volume in a jumble. And 
often there is no such orderly succession of thoughts in the sepa- 
rate articles themselves as to make it possible for the complain- 
ants to make extracts which shall have any vital relation to one 
another, unless they jump "backwards and forwards." If the 
professor would have our quotations follow the order of numbers 
on his pages, he must have some system in his theology. Now 
there is none. In each separate article, also, his views must have 
expression in some orderly arrangement, and not in mere miscel- 
laneous remarks, flung together in such pellmell fashion that one 
can about as well begin at the end of the article and read back- 
wards as at the beginning and read forwards. Moreover, if the 
defendant and his associate professors would have extracts from 
their writings appear orderly and lucid, there are some other 
things they must do ; instead of bringing laborious criticisms 
upon trivial literary matters into a grave discussion involving 
interests of immeasurable moment to the kingdom of God on 
earth and in heaven, they must give some attention to their own 
thinking and statements, and make them clear; and must give 
some lucid definitions of the meaning which they attach to theolog- 
ical terms, and of the doctrines which they believe and advocate, 
so as to make it utterly impossible for them to be on both sides 
of a great theological issue in one and the same discussion, and 
sometimes on neither side — so also as to make it utterly needless 
for them, when sharply arraigned for their quick theological 
somersaults and gyrations, to make the plea that they them- 
selves are living on such a lofty plane of spirituality and ability 



92 The Particular Complaints. 

that they do not expect to be understood by those who are living 
on a vastly lower plane of spirituality aud have vastly inferior 
ability. 

The defendant makes other solemn criticisms upon such petty 
matters as the use of a capital letter or two, and of a few con- 
junctions. But, Gentlemen of the Board, we are ashamed to take 
up your time in replying to them. We have alluded to these 
frivolous strictures partly because they occupy such large space 
in the professor's defence of himself and of his theology and 
partly because we wish to hold up for public condemnation the 
introduction of them into this serious discussion, and the animus 
which they unmistakably reveal. They disclose a sad failure to 
appreciate the gravity of this trial, the sacredness and the immen- 
sity of the interests which are at stake. 



II. 

FIRST PARTICULAR COMPLAINT. 

Our first particular complaint, under the fourth general charge 
is : that Professor Egbert C. Smyth, in opposition to the Creed 
and Statutes of the Seminary, "holds, maintains, and inculcates 
that the Bible is not the only perfect rule of faith and practice, 
but is fallible and untrustworthy even in some of its religious 
teachings." 

When the defendant subscribed to the Seminary Creed he 
declared: "I believe . . . that the Word of God, contained in 
the Scriptures of the Old and New Testament, is the only perfect 
rule of faith and practice." He also solemnly promised that he 
would " maintain and inculcate the Christian faith as expressed" 
in this part, and in all other parts of the Creed. Our present 
complaint is that he holds doctrines which contradict the state- 
ments of the Creed respecting the Scriptures ; and also that he 
has broken his promise, in that he does not maintain and inculcate 
the creed-doctrine of sacred Scripture as he solemnly promised 
he would do ; but on the contrary is maintaining and inculcating 
views respecting the Bible which are opposed to those expressed 
in the Creed. 

This Charge Already Sustained by the Visitors. 

This complaint has already been substantiated, before your 
Reverend and Honorable Board, by evidence and argument ; and 
your Board has decided that the charge is sustained. This charge 
thus sustained was one of the grounds on which your Board 
removed Professor Smyth from his professorship in this Seminary. 
The evidence and argument upon this charge are still before you 
and as they are in printed form there is no occasion for repeating 
them at this time. 

Permit us now to present some additional facts and considera- 
tions, which, we trust, will be found to be strongly confirmative of 
the arguments already presented. 

93 



94 First Particular Complaint. 

This Charge not Ruled upon by the Supreme Court. 

1. This charge stands to-day unrefuted. Its truth has not been 
impugned by the recent decision of the Supreme Court. The 
Court did not rule on this charge, or on any other charge presented 
by the complainants to the Visitors. That part of the de- 
cision of the Board of Visitors which removed Professor Smyth 
from office the court set aside solely on the ground of a mere 
technical informality in the proceedings, which informality was 
that the Visitors did not accede " to the application of the Board 
of Trustees to appear and be heard." The court did not touch 
upon anything else in the decision of the Visitors. It did not rule 
Upon one of the theological or moral questions which have been 
at issue in the Andover Case. Some learned writers for daily 
papers and some learned speakers at dinners given by the Trus- 
tees have apparently understood that every theological question 
and every moral question and all other questions that have been 
raised in the Andover trouble were ruled upon and determined by 
the Supreme Judicial Court in the Commonwealth of Massachu- 
setts, in its decision on the Andover Case rendered in October, 
1891, whereas not one of those theological and moral questions 
was even considered, still less decided, by that court. For in- 
stance, all that part of the decision of the Visitors in which they 
declared that the particular charge we are now considering and 
two other charges were sustained by the evidence and arguments 
presented by the complainants, and in which they consequently 
held that Professor Smyth " maintains and inculcates beliefs in- 
consistent with and repugnant to the Creed " of the Seminary — 
all that part of the decision of the Visitors the court did not rule 
upon, and did not consider, and therefore this particular charge 
which we have in hand, for all that the court said, is true now. It 
stands to-day unchallenged by the court. 

This Charge not Refuted by Professor Smyth. 
Nor, again, has this charge been refuted by the defendant. 
He has denied it. He denied it at the opening of this trial years 
ago. He denies it now. He has denied with great emphasis, 
and over and over, that any or all of the citations from The 
Andover Review, and from the book, "Progressive Orthodoxy," 
prove the charge. He has denied that ' k a scintilla of evidence," 



First Particular Complaint. 95 

to use his own term, has been produced which confirms the com- 
plaint. But vehement denials repeated over and over do not 
refute the charge. A million of them would not refute it. 

He has also presented to your Board what is ostensibly an 
argument in refutation of this charge. As printed in the book 
entitled " The Andover Defence," it covers ten and one-half pages ; 
but by far the larger part of it has nothing whatever to do with 
this particular charge. His heated questions about the relation 
of the citations to the complaint, all his laborious criticisms upon 
the manner, form, and order in which the citations were made, 
all his mournful citations from some ancient work about the 
difficulties and discouragement of an English bishop who lived 
two centuries ago, and all his quotations from Professor Stuart 
upon a large variety of subjects — all these things no more show 
that this particular charge has not been proved to be true, and is 
not true, than they show that the brilliant planet Mars has not 
been proved to be red and is not red. 

"A New Notion op the Bible." 

2. According to an editorial in The Anclover Review for April, 
1886, — an editorial already put into this case, — "Progressive 
Orthodoxy," which is the defendant's new theology, and the only 
theology he now espouses and defends, has among its treasured 
discoveries and speculations "a new notion of the Bible." And 
this " new notion of the Bible " is such that if a pastor, especially 
a young pastor, who has accepted it, and is fascinated with it, 
should be too eager to have it take possession of the minds of his 
people, and should blurt it out too frankly and inconsiderately, it 
would almost surely " wound religious feeling," produce revulsion 
in the minds of some of "the most valuable members of his 
congregation," and jeopardize pastoral relations. Still " the new 
notion of the Bible" must be preached, but it must be brought 
to the knowledge of the people slowly, indirectly, and with the 
greatest caution. Such are the spirit and aim of this editorial. 
No apology for it or explanation of it thus far offered has mod- 
ified in the least degree its unmistakable significance. It has not 
been denied that "Progressive Orthodoxy," appearing at the 
close of the nineteenth Christian century, has among its tenets 
" a new notion of the Bible." Yet the whole tone and drift of 



96 First Particular Complaint. 

the editorial go to show that this " new notion " is like a package 
of dynamite which must be handled with the greatest caution, 
especially in the pulpit, or there will be an explosion which will 
be destructive of the pastor's ministry, if not of the church 
itself. 

Now, Gentlemen of the Board, a "new notion of the Bible" 
which cannot be preached right out in its wholeness and in all its 
relations and bearings without wounding the religious feeling of 
the best, the most vigorous and earnest people in the congrega- 
tion, and disrupting pastoral relations, is not a notion which can 
be held and taught by a professor in Andover Seminary, without 
recreancy to its Statutes and Creed. The Founders, according to 
their Creed, believed the Bible to be " the Word of God," most 
holy and blessed. And any notion of the " Word of God " 
which is repugnant to the Christian feeling of the wisest, the 
best, the most devoted members of our churches to-day is cer- 
tainly repugnant also to the Christian feeling, faith, and purpose 
of the Founders as expressed in their Statutes and Creed. No 
one who has studied the character and faith of those men can 
doubt this. They believed that God's Word should be preached 
frankly and honestly, not doubtingly and timidly ; preached with- 
out fear or favor, yet with persuasiveness and love ; preached 
with all boldness and fidelity, — and that neither the Word 
of God nor anything about the Word of God should ever be 
preached with indirection or deceitfulness. Nobody who has any 
true understanding of the character and beliefs of those Founders 
can deny that had they anticipated that a "new notion of the 
Bible," repugnant to the Christian heart and faith, would ever be 
held and taught in their proposed sacred Institution, the Seminary 
would never have been founded. 

An Inconsistency. 

Besides, strange to say, this " religious feeling," this Christian 
consciousness, this inner divine light, which in this instance 
"Progressive Orthodoxy" teaches young ministers how to get 
around, to overcome, and dispose of, is the very thing which 
" Progressive Orthodoxy " elsewhere teaches is the one sure test 
of all pretended truth — the supreme tribunal before which all 
revelation even, from men or God, must bow down and submit its 



First Particular Complaint. 97 

credentials. This seems to us as complete a self-contradiction 
and self-stultification " as it was ever our misfortune to meet 
■with." But we must remember that "Progressive Orthodoxy," 
according to the testimony of one of its chief discoverers, lives 
and walks on a lofty plane of spirituality and ability, where it has 
a clear vision of things wonderful and incomprehensible, which 
we, and such as we, who live down on an infinitely lower plane 
of spirituality and ability can never behold or understand. Still, 
Mr. President, is it not possible that those who live forever away 
up in the clouds and mists may have only a beclouded and misty 
vision of some things in morals and in theology, which those of 
us who walk on the earth, having only feeble abilities, yet living 
in the bright sunshine, can see clearly and understand rightly? 

The Bible Not Infallible. 
3. This same editorial (Andover Review, April, 1886), for 
which the defendant is responsible and which he defends, represents 
that the Bible is a fallible book. Young ministers are counseled 
to adopt a certain method of pulpit instruction, by which the 
conclusion will be reached and commended to their hearers, 
"that Christian faith is not necessarily committed to the infalli- 
bility of the Bible." But if the Bible is not infallible, it is 
fallible ; and a fallible Bible is not " a perfect rule of faith and 
practice " — a conclusion which contradicts the Creed. Nothing 
has been produced which breaks down this evidence and this 
argument. It has already been shown that the phrase, "the 
Word of God," as used in the Creed, was intended to mean 
exactly the Bible, the Holy Scriptures. The defendant, then, in 
taking the Creed, declares it to be his belief that the Bible is a 
"perfect rule of faith and practice"; but in his "Progressive 
Orthodoxy" he teaches that the Bible is not a "perfect rule of 
faith and practice." This will seem to most minds conclusive 
evidence of the truth of our charge, notwithstanding the emphatic 
declaration of the defendant, that " not a scintilla of evidence" 
has been produced which shows that he holds and teaches any 
view of the Scriptures that is contrary to the Creed. 

The New Notion of the Bible Not New. 
But this notion that the Bible is a fallible book and therefore 
not a "perfect rule of faith and practice," is not "a new notion." 



98 First Particular Complaint. 

It is as old as the completed Bible. Through all the Christian 
centuries, atheists and infidels, all the avowed enemies of the 
Word of God, and the " liberals," so called, perhaps without 
exception, have held this same notion that "the Bible is fallible 
and untrustworthy even in some of its religious teachings." But 
Andover Seminary was not founded to maintain the views of 
liberals, infidels, and atheists, but of Consistent Calvinists. 

The Bible a Vehicle. 

4. In this same editorial passage for which the defendant is re- 
sponsible, " Progressive Orthodoxy " teaches that the Bible is " a 
vehicle," and "that the perfection of the vehicle is by no means 
implied in the preciousness of its contents," which is another way 
of teaching that the Holy Scriptures, which convey to us the 
revelations of God, may be, to any extent, imperfect and untrust- 
worthy. But no man who believes that they may be imperfect 
and untrustworthy can believe that they are " a perfect rule of 
faith and practice." 

The notion that the Bible is a vehicle is not new. It is found 
in some old religious writings, and when this representation is not 
pushed to the extreme there may be no objection to it. But 
"Progressive Orthodoxy" uses this figurative language to indi- 
cate, not simply a distinction between the Scripture which con- 
veys the divine revelation and the revelation itself, but also to 
set forth what would seem to be a most harmful error, namely, 
that the Scripture may be fallible without any detriment to the 
precious burden of divine truth and revelation which it was 
designed to bring to us. Such a conception certainly disparages 
the Scriptures and impairs their trustworthiness. An old cart is 
a vehicle, but what value is there in an old cart that is broken and 
wrecked? It may have rendered valuable service once, but it will 
never render such service again. 

But is the Bible merely a vehicle ? Is it true that the relation 
of the Scriptures to their contents is fairly imaged to us in the 
relation of a cart to what it carries ? We can easily separate a 
cart from its load without harm to either of them. There is 
nothing vital in their union. But can we separate the Holy 
Scriptures from their contents without detriment to the one or the 
other? Is there not something indispensable in their union? 



First Particular Complaint. 99 

There are lands in the world to-day in which there are no Bibles. 
Can the truths and revelations of the Holy Scriptures be made 
permanently prevalent in the knowledge and hearts of the people 
in those lands apart from the Scriptures themselves ? Are tradi- 
tion and preaching sufficient? Suppose every Bible in the world 
and all Scripture in the literatures of the world were to-day 
blotted out of existence : would all the truths and revelations of 
the Bible still remain in the world permanent and intact ? How 
long would it be before the entire world would become heathen, 
and how could it be prevented from remaining such forever unless 
God in mercy should again interpose, and give men another 
inspired and authentic record of his revelation in Christ and in 
his gospel? Even ivith the Bible, some lands once Christian, and 
some Christian churches even, have retrograded to heathenism. 
But without the Bible how much swifter must they have relapsed 
into heathen darkness and degradation ! This shows that, what- 
ever real distinction may be made between the Scriptures and 
their contents, in practical Christianity the two cannot be sepa- 
rated. The representation of the Bible as a vehicle may be 
deceptive. While it is true in the case of most vehicles that there 
is no important relation between them and what they carry, and 
that the perfection of the vehicle is not implied in the precious- 
ness of its contents, this is not true in the case of the Scriptures. 
There is a relation of vital moment between them and the truths 
and revelations which they convey. Practically in this case the 
vehicle and its contents cannot be separated. The world cannot 
have the divine truths and revelations working effectively and 
permanently in its history without having also the Scriptures 
which contain them. 

Moreover, if you impair or destroy the Scriptures, for all 
practical ends you put the truths and revelations themselves 
beyond reach. It may be said that the great facts and truths of 
the gospel existed before they were recorded, and would exist 
now if there were no Scripture ; that, for instance, the blessed 
fact that God so loved the world that he gave his only begotten 
Son to die for it would have remained a fact had it never been 
recorded. True ; but when that act of infinite love has once been 
put into an inspired and authoritative record for practical ends in 
the salvation of living men, that record lives in that divine act and 



100 First Particular Complaint. 

that divine act lives and works through that Scripture record. 
To mar or destroy that Scripture would impair the working and 
saving power of that divine act. 

A Fallible Bible Powerless. 

But how can the Holy Scriptures be destroyed ? They cannot 
be destroyed. Thousands of men have done their best to anni- 
hilate the Bible, but have failed utterly. Thousands are doing 
their best now to extinguish it, but all their labor will be brought 
to naught. No believer in God need ever tremble for his Word. 
Still in the faith of individual man, and in its power over indi- 
vidual minds, hearts, and lives, the Bible may be destroyed. A 
man's Bible exists no longer for him when he ceases to have 
confidence in its divine authority and in its trustworthiness. A 
fallible Bible is not a precious Bible, and when the Bible ceases 
to be precious to a human heart it loses power over that heart. 
It is an infallible Bible that has both preciousness and power. 
It is not true, then, that the perfection of the Scriptures is by no 
means implied in the preciousness of their contents. Practically 
the infallibility of the Bible and the preciousness of its truths 
and revelations go together ; also, the fallibility of the Bible and 
the non-preciousness of its contents go together. If a man's 
Bible is dear to him, that does imply that to him it is infallible, 
the very " Word of God," having had utterance in some true 
and real sense from God himself. The Bible is not a toy to 
play with, nor a puzzle to be solved. It is for practical service 
in promoting the most transcendent interests of men in time and 
in eternity. It has been given us for redemptive uses, and for 
the perfecting and the comforting of God's people, and not for 
the training of intellectual gymnasts. It has come to us from 
God for the salvation of a sinful and lost world, and not for 
bolstering up the down-tumbling theories of "Progressive 
Orthodoxy." 

The Founders' View of the Bible. 

Now the faith of the Founders respecting the Scriptures we 
know. There can be no question as to what it was. They be- 
lieved the Scriptures to be " the Word of God," infallible in their 
moral and religious teachings, " the only perfect rule of faith and 



First Particular Complaint. 101 

practice/' and that they have a divinely ordained and practical 
relation to the facts, truths, and revelations which they convey to 
us. The Founders accepted without question the declaration of 
the apostle Peter : " Holy men of God spake as they were moved 
by the Holy Ghost." Their interpretation of this apostolic state- 
ment was, that the sacred writers were specially moved upon, and 
directed by, the Holy Ghost in the speaking of the truths which 
God desired to make known to the world, and so also in the writ- 
ing of such truths ; that they were " moved" by the Holy Ghost 
in speaking and in writing the truth no less than in the reception 
of it into their own minds and hearts. The Founders also ac- 
cepted without question the declaration of the apostle Paul : "All 
Scripture is given by inspiration of God." This apostolic state- 
ment does not imply that the sacred writers were mere pens in the 
hands of God ; but it does imply, and the Founders understood 
it to imply, that all Holy Scripture came into being under the 
inspiring, inbreathing energy of God. It was the "Scripture " 
the writing, that was thus inspired. A knowledge and an un- 
derstanding of the truth may at the same time have been breathed 
into the minds and hearts of the sacred writers ; but what Paul 
says is that ' ' all Scripture is given by inspiration of God " — 
the writing of the truth is what the divine inspiration brings 
about. This is what the Founders of the Seminary believed. 
They accepted these apostolic statements as declaring the divine 
origin and authority of the Holy Scriptures. Hence the Bible 
was to them the "Word of God," holy, infallible, "the only 
perfect rule of faith and practice." 

The Defendant's View of the Bible. 

Now, we complain that this entire view of the origin and 
authority of the Holy Scripture is rejected by " Progressive Ortho- 
doxy." These plain, positive, decisive statements of the apostles 
have no prominence in the professor's long chapter on "The 
Scriptures." They are barely alluded to, and that only for the 
purpose of setting them aside summarily as giving us no account 
of the origin of the Scriptures ; while the faith of those who 
accept, as the Founders did, the apostolic account of their ori- 
gin is treated with misrepresentation and contempt, as if they 
believe that the Bible was created, as the world was, by "a. 



102 First Particular Complaint. 

special operation of Almighty power," 1 that it is "a book of 
oracles," and was produced "by sheer and stark miracle." 2 
Especially and most emphatically does ' ' Progressive Orthodoxy " 
deny, in opposition to the belief of the Founders, that the 
sacred writers wrote under any moving of the Holy Spirit, or 
inspiration of God, other than that which influenced them in their 
daily speech and life, or other in kind than that under which all 
Christian people speak and write and act to-day. Such state- 
ments as the following are significant. Speaking of the agency 
of "Almighty power" in producing the Holy Scriptures, "Pro- 
gressive Orthodoxy" (p. 194) says: — 

But surely in the absence of a clear revelation that such special divine 
power was employed, we have no right to assert its exercise. If with- 
out its use the Bible as it stands can be accounted for, it becomes 
unnecessary. . . . [Christian faith] says, therefore, that if the forces 
visible in sacred history appear to the best human vision to have pro- 
duced the Bible, God must have wished man to believe that they did 
produce it. 

Referring to the apostolic epistles, "Progressive Orthodoxy" 
says : — 

Whatever is peculiar in their composition, or extraordinary in their 
value, is to be found in the apostolic teaching generally. For there is 
not a scintilla of evidence that God assumed to the minds of the apos- 
tles a new relation as soon as they sat down to write, and that, in con- 
sequence, what they wrote had a different quality from what they said. 3 

But " Progressive Orthodoxy "does not admit that the apostles 
had any divine aid in their oral teaching other than what they 
had in their daily living. It affirms that their noble deeds and 
their oral teaching alike flowed from their spiritual life, which 
spiritual life was not in the least different in kind from that of 
other Christians. It says : — 

The gift received by the infant church on Pentecost was not merely 
the bestowal of this and that capacity ; it was that of living in a new 
and higher way. Out of its quickened and mightily invigorated life 
leaped its new deeds of heroic devotion. From this fresh and ever- 
renewed fountain flowed its teaching. 4 

But it is generally supposed that the supreme transaction on 
the day of Pentecost was the sudden and special descent of the 

iProg. Orth. p. 194. 2 Ibid. p. 203. 3 p.l96. *p. 200. 



First Particular Complaint. 103 

Holy Spirit of God, and that He had something special to do that 
day, not simply with the life of the disciples in general, but with 
the preaching of Peter in particular. Undoubtedly, the one hun- 
dred and twenty disciples were brought into " a new and higher 
way " of living, but if the eleven apostles received nothing more 
than a new and higher spiritual life — nothing more special — 
why did not all the one hundred and twenty disciples become 
apostles, preaching that day as Peter did, and bringing each of 
them three thousand souls into the kingdom, and afterwards 
writing, out of their own new and higher spiritual life, apostolic 
epistles which would live forever as " The Word of God"? 

The Scriptures not Specially Inspired. 

That "Progressive Orthodoxy" denies the fact of any special 
apostolic inspiration different from that enjoyed by all Chris- 
tian teachers and writers is also made plain by the following 
statement : — 

We should not dwell upon what seems to us so obvious, but for the 
fact that the assumption of a special activity of the divine Spirit upon 
the apostles and other writers of Scripture in the act of composition, 
endowing what came from their pens with qualities possessed by no 
other Christian teaching, is a most fruitful source of confusion, in the 
endeavor to find out what Scripture is. It is insisted, not only that 
there is no evidence of such an act, but that the supposition of its exist- 
ence is contrary to facts which lie on the face of the Scriptures. 1 

"Progressive Orthodoxy" teaches that the daily outward life 
of the apostles, their preaching and their writing, all alike, come 
directly from their inner spiritual life. But their inner spiritual 
life did not keep them from wrong acts in their outward lives. 
Peter dissembled. Paul confessed that he had not attained to 
perfection. But if the inner spiritual life of the apostles did not 
keep them from moral error in their lives, how could it have kept 
them from religious error in their writings? To deny, as "Pro- 
gressive Orthodoxy" does, that the sacred writers had any special 
divine aid in their writing is to deny that their writings them- 
selves, the Holy Scriptures, have any special divine authority or 
trustworthiness. 

We claim, therefore, that these "progressive" views of the 

» Prog. Ortli. p. 198. 



104 First Particular Complaint. 

origin of the Bible, accepted and defended by a professor in 
Andover Seminary, make it impossible for him to believe that 
the Scriptures are a " perfect rule of faith and practice." In 
taking the Creed he declares that they are a "perfect rule," 
but in accepting and defending "Progressive Orthodoxy" he 
declares that they are not a " perfect rule of faith and practice." 

Moreover, this inner spiritual life of the sacred writers, which 
is said to have been the immediate source of the Holy Scriptures, 
must itself have come from, or have been a part of, those "forces 
visible in sacred history," which also are said to have produced 
the Bible. Yet those historical forces may be regarded as work- 
ing simply according to the laws of necessary evolution. In that 
case the Bible would be only their natural and inevitable product. 
This would make the Bible, at the best, simply a survival of the 
fittest, in the production of which God has had no more to do 
than he has had in the production of the grass and the trees. 

It is well known that the views of the origin of the Bible 
expressed in "Progressive Orthodoxy" have already led some of 
their zealous advocates to represent that the inspiration of David 
and Isaiah, of Paul and John was nothing different in kind from 
that of Shakespeare and Byron, Theodore Parker and Ralph 
Waldo Emerson. Yet "Progressive Orthodoxy" is not self -con- 
sistent. It sometimes makes statements and uses phrases which 
contradict the statements now quoted. This may indicate that 
the writer has still some lingerings in his mind of his old evangel- 
ical faith, and that the view of the dear old Book, as " The Word 
of God," taught him, perhaps, in his childhood home, will now 
and then, in spite of himself, get into verbal expression. But 
the views we have here presented are the real and prevailing 
views of "Progressive Orthodoxy"; and these accepted by any 
man will soon and inevitably drive out of his mind all opposing 
views and prevent inconsistent statements. 

Now we submit, Gentlemen of the Board, that a theory of the 
origin and character of the Bible which sets it forth as a fallible 
book, and, so far as fallible, untrustworthy in its teachings and 
revelations ; which disparages the Holy Scriptures by describing 
them as sustaining no essential or important relation to their 
contents ; which discards the Bible's own representations of its 
origin and character ; which makes the Bible simply the product 



First Particular Complaint. 105 

of visible forces working in sacred history ; and which denies 
that the sacred writers wrote under any special moving influences 
of the Holy Spirit, or under any special inspiration of God, — 
we submit that such a theory of the origin and character of the 
Bible cannot be held, defended, and taught by a professor in 
Andover Seminary without undeniable and criminal disloyalty to 
its Creed and Statutes. 

5. The attention of the Board is asked to only one more of the 
many other proofs of our first particular charge. 

The Supreme Test of All Scriptures, " In Our Mind 
and Hearts." 

" Progressive Orthodoxy," which the defendant accepts and de- 
fends as his own theology, teaches that all revelation, aside from 
Christ himself, coming to us as from God, must present its cre- 
dentials to " Christ's truth in our mind and hearts." That is, 
" Christ's truth in our mind and hearts," whatever that may mean, 
is the supreme test and standard by which all other pretended truth 
or revelation is to be tried and judged. Of course, then, the Holy 
Scriptures are not "the only perfect rule of faith and practice," 
for there is another and superior rule of faith and practice found 
" in our mind and hearts," before which all external truth and 
revelation must bow down and submit their credentials. This 
remarkable teaching, so utterly antagonistic to the doctrine of 
the Andover Creed, is set forth in the following extract : — 

If Christ is the supreme and final revelation, He is the test of all pre- 
ceding revelation. If we accept Him as God's supreme and final reve- 
lation, we must bring preceding revelations to this test. We cannot 
escape the process of comparison if we would. He brings us his own 
conception of God, of life, of duty. It claims to cover the whole hori- 
zon of truth, and demands possession of every spiritual and rational 
faculty. If we will have it as ours, we must hold it separate from and 
above every other. Whatever else comes to us as from God must present 
its credentials to Christ's truth in our mind and hearts. This is not only 
the teaching of Christian faith ; it is the teaching of Christ. When He 
told us that certain precepts of the law were to be replaced by spiritual 
maxims more in harmony with the nature of God, He taught us to apply 
Christian principles to all the law and prophets, and to regard all 
in them which is not consistent with those principles as superseded by 
the new revelation. For no one thinks, surely, that when He made 



106 First Particular Complaint. 

exceptions to certain provisions of the Mosaic code, He merely amended 
a law which whenever not amended holds good. 1 

Our complaint against the writer of this passage is not that he 
recognizes " no objective divine revelation." He does recognize 
such a revelation. But our charge is that he makes that objective 
divine revelation inferior to that which he finds in his own mind 
and heart, and in the minds and hearts of others ; and thus 
makes it impossible for him truthfully and honestly to take the 
Creed and say: "I believe, . . . that the Word of God, con- 
tained in the Scriptures of the Old and New Testament, is the 
only perfect rule of faith and practice ; " for at the same time, in 
"Progressive Orthodoxy," he is declaring his belief to be that the 
Word of God contained in the Scriptures must bow down before, 
and submit its credentials to, another and superior rule of faith 
and practice, which he finds in " Christ's truth in his own mind 
and heart." He even goes so far as to claim that by means of 
this supreme test and standard of truth which he has within him 
he himself can amend the law and the prophets (as he falsely 
affirms Christ did), and thus set up for himself and the world 
another rule of faith and practice which shall be superior to and 
supersede whatever he may judge erroneous in the Scriptures. 
Christ, he says, "taught its," that is, every living disciple, "to 
apply Christian principles to all the law and prophets, and to 
regard all in them which is not consistent with those principles as 
superseded by the new revelation." This would give every Chris- 
tian, if not every man, full liberty to amend the Scriptures accord- 
ing to his own pleasure, all the time thinking he is piously 
following the example of Christ — just as if he had all power 
and authority to do everything Christ did ; and just as if Christ 
ever amended, and, so far as He amended, destroyed a single 
ancient Scripture, when he himself said: "Think not that I 
came to destroy the law or the prophets : I came not to destroy, 
but to fulfill. For verily I say unto you, Till heaven and earth 
pass away, one jot or one tittle shall in no wise pass away from 
the law, till all things be accomplished." That surely does not 
look as if Christ had done very much at the business of amend- 
ing or changing the ancient Scriptures as an example to us to do 
the same. 

iProg. Orth. p. 231. 



First Particular Complaint. 107 

Christ in Every Man. 

But what is " Christ's truth in our mind and hearts," and 
whence does it come? It cannot be the gospel as given by the 
four Evangelists, nor any other Scripture, for it is itself the test 
of all Scripture, and therefore superior to all Scripture. " Christ's 
truth in our mind and hearts " may mean ' ' Christian conscious- 
ness " ; for that is a marvelous power, according to " Progressive 
Orthodoxy," and is superior to all Scripture as a rule of faith and 
practice, thus in itself furnishing us with positive proof that the 
defendant does not believe in the Bible as " the only perfect rule 
of faith and practice." But " Christ's truth" in us is a queer 
designation of Christian consciousness. More likely by " Christ's 
truth in our mind and hearts " is meant Christ himself, for in this 
same passage Christ is spoken of as "the supreme and final reve- 
lation," and "Christ's truth" in us is also described as the 
supreme and final revelation. Moreover, " Progressive Ortho- 
doxy " elsewhere, speaking of the apostles, says : — 

Not that they alone possessed the Spirit of wisdom and revelation. 
He [Christ] is the Spirit of wisdom and revelation in every soul in 
which He dwells. 1 

Note this statement: " Christ is the Spirit," not of wisdom only, 
but " of revelation in every soul in which He dwells." Thus every 
such soul, as truly as the apostles, has the Spirit and power of 
revelation, and the writings of the apostles are not " the only 
perfect rule of faith and practice." Moreover, according to 
"Progressive Orthodoxy," Christ dwells in every man. "Christ 
in every man" the very person and being of Christ organically and 
vitally united to, and immanent in, every human being — this, as 
will be shown further on, is the germ and root, the primary, 
formative, all-pervading, all-controlling principle in " Progressive 
Orthodoxy." It is a pantheistic and pagan principle. It corrupts 
every Christian doctrine it touches, and it touches all the miscel- 
laneous doctrines that have been included in " Progressive Ortho- 
doxy." It touches its doctrine concerning Scripture at the point 
now before us. It practically says that the truth of Christ, who 
is immanent in every human soul, is the supreme and final reve- 
lation, before which every other revelation, including all the 

ip.209. 



108 First Particular Complaint. 

Scriptures, coming to us as from God, must bow down and sub- 
mit its credentials. Such doubtless is the meaning of this nota- 
ble passage in "Progressive Orthodoxy." But for our present 
purpose we are not obliged to show what the meaning of the phrase 
"Christ's truth in our mind and hearts" is. Whatever it signi- 
fies, it is something in us which as revelation is superior to the 
Holy Scriptures ; and no man can believe in any such superior 
truth or revelation in himself, and at the same time believe that 
the Scriptures are the " only perfect rule of faith and practice." 

It has now been proved, we submit, if anything can be proved, 
that our charge is true; namely, that the defendant "holds, 
maintains, and inculcates that the Bible is not the only perfect 
rule of faith and practice, but is fallible and untrustworthy even 
in some of its religious teachings." 

But the proof of this allegation is proof also of our first 
general charge ; namely, that the defendant " has taught doctrines 
. . . which are not in harmony with, but antagonistic to, the 
Constitution and Statutes of the Seminary and the ' true inten- 
tion' of its Founders as expressed in those Statutes." 

It is proof also of our second general charge, namely, that the 
defendant, "contrary to the requirements of Articles XI and 
XII of the Constitution, as modified by Article I of the Addi- 
tional Statutes, is not a man ' of sound and orthodox principles.' " 

Finally, our proof of this first particular allegation is proof 
likewise of our third general charge ; namely, that the defendant, 
in breach of the requirement of Article II of the Associate 
Foundation, upon which he is placed, is not an " orthodox and 
consistent Calvinist." 



III. 

SECOND PARTICULAR COMPLAINT. 

Our second special complaint is that Professor Egbert C. Smyth 
holds, maintains, and inculcates, in opposition to the Creed and 
the Statutes of the Seminary, "That Christ in the days of his 
humiliation was a finite being, limited in all his attributes, capac- 
ities, and attainments; in other words, was not God and man." 

In subscribing to the Creed of the Seminary, the defendant 
declares it to be his belief " that the only Redeemer of the elect 
is the eternal Son of God, who for this purpose became man, and 
continues to be God and man in two distinct natures and one 
person forever." The defendant also declares, in taking the 
Creed, that in his belief " God is a Spirit, infinite, eternal, and 
unchangeable in his being, wisdom, power ; . . . that in the God- 
head are three Persons, the Father, the Son, and the Holy Ghost, 
and that these three are one God, the same in substance, equal 
in power and glory." 

The Question at Issue. 
Now the question at issue is, Does the Creed allow the belief 
that when the eternal Son of God " became flesh " He ceased to 
be God, became ignorant, changeable, unwise, limited in all his 
attributes — so ignorant, indeed, that in some cases He did not 
know the nature of the diseases He healed? Does the Creed allow 
such a belief as this? Impossible ; for it says definitely that the 
eternal Son of God " became man, and continues to be God and 
man in two distinct natures and one person forever." That is, from 
the moment of his becoming man, He " continues to be God and 
man " forever. He had a human nature with its limitations. At 
the same time He has a divine nature which is without limitations, 
for He is truly God as well as truly man. The Creed definitely 
states that He had " two distinct natures." It does not permit 
the belief that it was his human nature that was divine, and that 
therefore He had only one nature, and that this one human nature 
was divine only in the sense in which all human nature is divine. 

109 



110 Second Particular Complaint. 

It declares that the eternal Son of God becoming incarnate con- 
tinues to be, not simply a divine man, but God and man. This is 
known to have been the belief of the Founders. And it is a 
well-established legal as well as moral principle that a creed is to be 
honestly interpreted according to the known beliefs of its authors. 

The Charge. 

Now we charge that the defendant, who accepts and defends 
" Progressive Orthodoxy," holds that the eternal Son of God, in 
taking on our nature, did cease to be God, and became ignorant 
and mutable, became limited in all his powers and attributes ; and 
then at his ascension and glorification became again God, immu- 
table, omniscient, omnipresent, and infinite in all his attributes. 

In proof of this charge, at the first trial of the defendant 
three passages were cited, two from "Progressive Orthodoxy," 
and one from The Andover Review. The two from " Progressive 
Orthodoxy " were cited to show that the defendant believes that 
God in becoming incarnate ceased to be God, and the third was 
quoted to show that he also believes that Christ, in his ascension 
and glorification, again became God, infinite, omnipresent, and 
unchangeable. 

Reply of the Defendant. 

The professor, in his first reply, misquoted the charge, repre- 
senting it to be that the defendant holds, maintains, and inculcates 
" that Christ was not during his earthly life Lord and Man." The 
professor substitutes the phrase " Lord and Man," for the phrase 
used in the charge and in the Creed, " God and Man." He then 
replies to the charge, thus misstated by himself, in three sentences, 
saying first, — 

If this means that I hold that he was not two persons, I admit the 
allegation, and deny that I thus affirm anything contrary to the Creed 
and Statutes. 

Of course he knew perfectly well that no such allegation had 
been made against him. But he must appear to say something in 
response to the serious charge to which he was called to answer. 
So he conjectured another charge, and dealt with that. The 
Creed itself distinctly affirms that the incarnate Christ was " one 
Person." 

His second sentence in reply was : — 



Second Particular Complaint. Ill 

If it [the charge] means that I hold that He was not from his birth or 
Incarnation both Lord and Man, I deny the accusation. 

Whether this repeated substitution of the word "Lord" for the 
word "God" was made designedly or by mistake, we do not 
know. In either case, however, the defendant would seem simply 
to deny the charge made against him, without rebutting or dis- 
posing of the evidence which sustains the charge. 
His third sentence in reply was : — 

I deny also that the "more definite specification" given yields anything 
which contradicts the language cited by the complainants from the 
Seminary Creed. 

Not a word did he say in explanation or retraction of the state- 
ments found in the two citations from "Progressive Orthodoxy," 
which, we claim, furnish positive proof of the truth of our charge. 

The professor in his second reply 1 — which was given in his 
public trial before the Visitors — dealt with this charge in a still 
more summary and evasive manner. He made not the least allu- 
sion to the two decisive quotations which we made from "Progress- 
ive Orthodoxy," but referring to our quotation from The Andover 
Review, which was presented to show that the defendant does 
believe that Christ after his ascension and glorification was God, 
the professor simply remarks that ' ' the complainants . . . over- 
look the statement on page 524," which affirms that " Jesus Christ 
the Saviour" " was true God and true man." But the decisive 
question is, When was He true God and true man? Not the least 
hint is given in the quotation suggested by the professor that our 
Lord and Saviour was truly God while in the flesh. The theory 
of "Progressive Orthodoxy" appears to be that the man Jesus, 
at his glorification, expanded into, or in some way became, God, 
and the theory may include the notion that he took his humanity 
with him, and so became God and man. But all this has nothing 
to do with our complaint. It is difficult to see how the defendant 
could have dealt more evasively with this most serious charge, or 
have made a more complete failure to vindicate himself against it. 

Evidence in Support of the Complaint. 
We now present again the two citations from " Progressive 
Orthodoxy " which contain the proof of our charge, and which 

1 The Andover Defence, p. 114. 



112 Second Particular Complaint. 

the defendant neglected to explain or justify or retract. The 
first is as follows : — 

And even if one is convinced that our Lord accepted the traditional 
view of the authorship of the books in question [the Pentateuch], he 
cannot hold that His authority is committed to that view until he has 
satisfied himself that Christ claimed to be omniscient during the days 
of his humiliation — a belief irreconcilable with his own declaration 
that He knew neither the day nor the hour of his second coming. 1 

This is an indirect yet convincing statement on the part of 
the writer that he does not believe that Christ was omniscient in 
the days of his humiliation. But if He was not omniscient, He was 
not God. 

The second citation was this : — 

There was not only growth of the humanity of Jesus, but a progress- 
ive union with the divine. Here is the truth in the theories of the Keno- 
tists, who maintain that the Word, at the Incarnation, laid aside, or 
suspended the exercise of, his attributes of omniscience, omnipotence, 
and the like. This is but a clumsy and somewhat violent and unethical 
method of appropriating certain undeniable facts ; such as the limitation 
of Jesus' knowledge, the perfect human reality of his earthly life, the 
veritable growth of his consciousness and personality from the moment 
of the Incarnation. 2 

Among the facts which the defendant says are undeniable is 
" the limitation of Jesus' knowledge.'* But we repeat, if Christ, 
the eternal Son of God, in the days of his humiliation was ignorant, 
He was not God. If He was not omniscient, He was not all-wise ; 
if not all- wise, He was not almighty, nor did He possess any other 
infinite attribute. 

The third citation was designed to prove that, in the defend- 
ant's belief, this man, called Jesus, in his glorification became 
true God, even if He still continued to be true man. The citation 
is as follows : — 

The limitations to which his humanity subjected him are recognized : 
but as the glorified Christ, He is delocalized, unlimited, is with his 
church alway unto the end of the world. 3 

The absolute absurdity of representing that the finite can be- 
come infinite does not appear to have occurred to the progressive 
divines. But according to the citations now presented the teach- 

1 Prog. Orth . p. 227. 2 Ibid. p. 32. s Andover Review, May, 1886, p. 522. 



Second Particular Complaint. 113 

ings of " Progressive Orthodoxy " upon the momentous question 
of the deity of our Lord during the days of his humiliation, when 
He made the atonement, and when He was giving to the .world 
" the everlasting gospel," are evidently such that no man who 
accepts them can truthfully and honestly subscribe to that state- 
ment of the Creed which affirms that "the eternal Son of God" 
"became man, and continues to be God and man, in two distinct 
natures and one person forever." Nor can any man who accepts 
such views truthfully and honestly subscribe to the Creed-declara- 
tion that "God is a Spirit infinite, eternal, and unchangeable in 
his being, wisdom, power." For if He who is declared in the Creed 
to be " the eternal Son of God," " the same in substance, equal 
in power and glory " with the Father and the Holy Ghost, became, 
in the days of his Incarnation, ignorant, unwise, and limited in 
all his powers and attributes, and so ceased to be God, then God 
is a changeable God. His very being is in a state of flux and 
reflux. He may be one kind of being to-day and another kind 
to-morrow, infinite in all his attributes one time, finite in all his 
attributes at another time. True, change in an infinite Being is 
impossible, and nothing can exceed the absurdity of such a con- 
ception ; yet this is the conception and teaching of " Progressive 
Orthodoxy." The progressive professors, in subscribing to the 
Creed, declare their belief to be that God is "unchangeable in 
his being, wisdom, power." But in their "Progressive Ortho- 
doxy " they declare their belief to be that God is not unchangeable 
in his being, wisdom, and power ; that in the Incarnation of the 
eternal Son, who was " the same in substance, and equal in power 
and glory " with the Father and the Holy Ghost, He became finite 
in his being, and limited in all his power and attributes ; that is, 
He who was God ceased to be God. 

Editorials on the Divinity of Christ. 1 

Since the last hearings upon the Andover Case before the Board 
of Visitors, held September 1 and 6, 1892, a series of editorial 
articles upon " The Divinity of Christ," in The Andover Review, 
has been continued. These articles furnish abundant confirmation 
of our charge that the editorial professors do not believe in the 

1 Since this argument was prepared, these editorials have been published in a book 
entitled " The Divinity of Jesus Christ." 



114 Second Particular Complaint. 

deity of our Incarnate Lord and Saviour, and that in this particu- 
lar they antagonize the Creed which they have accepted and 
promised to maintain. 

The Incarnate Son of God Unconscious of His Deity. 

First, they teach in these recent and remarkable discussions 
that our Lord, while on the earth, had no consciousness of his 
own Deity. They quote approvingly from a recent writer these 
words : — 

If in any one thing the man Christ Jesus knew as God, knew because 
He was God, knew after the . . . mode of the divine and not human 
knowledge — in that thing his humanity was violated, ceased to be 
humanity, and became or was changed into divinity. A human mind 
can only know in accordance with the laws and conditions of the human 
mind and of human knowledge. When it knows outside of these, it is 
not a human mind. 

Upon this quotation the professors remark : — 

This is as true when the thing known is the knowing mind itself as 
when it is a person or fact outside of it. Hence, Jesus Christ's being 
the person whom the Apostles believed Him to be does not imply that his 
self-consciousness formerly comprehended an infinite nature, however 
really it reached into and vitally reflected the Divine Life, but the con- 
trary. For the self-consciousness which comprehends the infinite is the 
activity of a divine, not of a human mind. 1 

This language of the professors, and of the writer whose sen- 
timents they approvingly quote, clearly denies the Deity of our 
Incarnate Lord. They declare that Christ, being a man, could not 
be conscious that He was God without a violation of his human- 
ity, without ceasing to be human, and becoming God. Of course, 
then, in the belief of the professors, Christ while in the flesh 
was not God. For, in their view, He was not conscious of being 
God. A God unconscious of his Deity is an absurdity. The 
Creed, however, which the professors have subscribed to, and 
solemnly promised to inculcate, declares that the eternal Son 
of God ''became man, and continues to be God and man," that 
is, continues to be God, and of course is conscious of being God ; 
and continues to be man, and of course is conscious of being man. 

1 Andover Review, July, 1892, p. 82. 



Second Particular Complaint. 115 

If the professors declare that this statement of the Creed is ab- 
surd, and that they cannot believe it, then why do they subscribe 
to the Creed and declare that they do believe it? Why not be 
honest men and resign their professorships? 

Christ did Not have Two Natures. 

Secondly, the professors in the language quoted above, and 
repeatedly elsewhere, deny that our Incarnate Lord had " two dis- 
tinct natures." They teach that Christ being a man was not God, 
and could not have been conscious of being God. Then surely 
He did not have the nature of God, and could not have been 
conscious of having such a nature. The belief of the profess- 
ors obviously is that Christ had a veritable human nature, but no 
divine nature distinct from his human nature. Yet the Andover 
Creed, which these same professors have accepted and promised 
to maintain and teach, affirms "that the eternal Son of God" 
"became man, and continues to be God and man in two distinct 
natures and one person forever." 

Human Nature in Christ and in All Men Divine. 

Yet, thirdly, the professors speak boldly of the " divine 
nature of Christ," of his u divinity," his " divineness," and 
of his " divine-human personality." But these are words of 
duplex and indefinite meaning, and can be used illusively. 
What is their import as used by the Andover progressives ? It 
is not their custom to give definitions, and these terms, so far 
as we know, they have never defined. They may, therefore, use 
them designedly or undesignedly in such a vague and evasive 
sense as to make the impression on some minds that they 
themselves believe in the true divinity, the absolute Deity of the 
Incarnate Christ, when in fact they believe in nothing of the kind. 
Sometimes, perhaps, the professors do use this terminology as 
expressing the idea of absolute Deity ; but more usually they 
appear to use it as signifying nothing more than that God was 
in Christ as He is in all nature and in all men, only in a larger 
degree. According to their conception there were not "two dis- 
tinct natures " in Christ, one being God, or infinite, and the other 
being man, or finite. Christ had only one nature, which was a 
human nature. But his human nature was divine. His divinity 



116 Second Particular Complaint. 

was " the divinity of humanity." God, they intimate, could " so 
unite himself to a human soul as to make it divine." 1 

But note, "it was a human soul" in Christ that was made divine. 
It was, then, only a created divineness that Christ had. He had a 
divine nature, but his divine nature was only his created human 
nature. He was conscious, therefore, of his divineness, but not 
of being God. While He had no divine nature distinct from his 
human nature (as the Andover Creed affirms He had), yet He 
" had divineness in a human nature." 2 

Unitarianism. 
Throughout these articles on "The Divinity of Christ," the 
words "divine" and "divinity" are used in the same sense in 
which the Unitarians were wont to use them. They claimed to 
believe in " the divinity of Christ." They even held, as has been 
stated by high authority, "that he was very divine." It is most 
painful to notice in articles written by Andover professors the 
same evasion and ambidextrousness in the use of words which 
have so often been practised by the bitterest enemies of evangelical 
Christianity. Can this practice be introduced into Andover Sem- 
inary without shameful disloyalty to the sacred faith and purposes 
of the Founders? Andover Seminary was founded for the 
express purpose of opposing the Unitarian view of the divinity 
of Christ. 

Naturalism. 

Fourthly, the Andover progressives in these editorial articles 
represent Christ as belonging to an ascending order of revela- 
tions, and as completing that order. They say : — 

u Nature is a revelation of God." " Humanity is a revelation of 
God." "Is humanity, as it is and has been, the culmination?" "If 
nature reveals God, affording conditions favorable to the expressions 
of his greatness and wisdom, so far forth there is a kinship between 
God and nature. It is not separate from Him, nor exclusive of Him, 
but is open at every point, in every atom, to his indwelling. . . . With 
humanity He is more closely akin. . . . Such kinship between man 
and God constitutes human nature the most fitting organ for the em- 
bodiment, the incarnation, of the divine grace and love which are 
necessary to make men the children of God. . . . And if God lives in 
nature so that He can be known there, if He reveals himself in and to 

i Andover Review, July, 1892, pp. 82, 89. 2 Ibid. July, 1892, p. 89. 



Second Particular Complaint. 117 

the reason and conscience of man, much more, it is easy to believe, 
could He reveal himself through, or unite himself to, or live in, that 
person who is confessed to be the best, the holiest, the most akin to 
God of all the men who have ever lived. The belief concerning Jesus 
is not that God in all his absoluteness, omniscience, and omnipotence 
took on the form of a man and walked about among men in Galilee, 
so that Jesus knew all occurrences on earth and through the universe, 
and was conscious that he created the stars, and knew more than not 
only the ancients, but more than the moderns, of science and philoso- 
phy ; but it is the belief that God was in Christ, so far as God can man- 
ifest his life in a human personality at a given period in history, and 
for the purpose of bringing in his grace and love for the renewal and 
perfection of men." l 

The Divine Immanence. 

In the last of the above quotations the professorial editors 
declare dogmatically " the belief concerning Jesus" — what it 
is not and what it is. But whose belief is it? Surely not that 
of the Founders of Andover Seminary as formulated in their 
Creed, which the professors themselves are under the most 
sacred obligations to maintain and inculcate. For that Creed 
declares explicitly that "the eternal Son of God," who is "the 
same in substance, equal in power and glory" with the Father 
and Holy Ghost, " became man, and continues to be God and man 
in two distinct natures and one person forever." This belief no 
sane man will say is " the belief concerning Jesus," dogmatically 
affirmed by the professors in the above extracts. Nor is their 
"belief" concerning Jesus, as they now formulate it, found in 
any evangelical Creed that was ever written. Nor can it be dis- 
covered in the Scriptures. It has been generally supposed by 
Christian people that our knowledge concerning Christ must 
come from the Word of God. But these professors, in determin- 
ing "the belief concerning Jesus," have nothing to do with the 
Word of God. In all their recently published discussions upon 
" The Divinity of Christ," they have made only a few remote and 
vague allusions to scriptural statements upon the subject. Their 
Christ is one of their own creation. "The belief concerning 
Jesus," which they set forth is born of their own fancy, and they 
offer not a single particle of evidence in support of its truth. 
Their statements are presented as so many oracles. 

» Andover Review, October, 1892, pp. 392, 393, 396-398. 



118 Second Particular Complaint. 

"It is the belief" they tell us, " that God was in Christ so far 
as God can manifest his life in a human personality at a given 
period in history." (The italics are ours.) There is no mistak- 
ing the theory that lies back of this oracular statement. The 
professors are not the only men who are reading works upon 
evolution and studying the old pagan Pantheism of Greece and 
India ; but it is to be hoped that they are the only men who place 
the authority of such sources of knowledge respecting God and 
his eternal Son above that of God's Holy Word. 

The theory that lies back of the professor's speculative " belief 
concerning Jesus" is that of " the divine immanence" so called, 
as distinguished from the divine omnipresence ; the latter mean- 
ing not only that God is everywhere present in his universe, but 
also that He is other than any of the beings, worlds, and things 
which He has created ; the former meaning that God is organically 
and vitally united to all the beings, worlds, and things which 
make up what is called the universe, so that the universe as a 
whole and all the individual beings and things in it partake of 
the divine essence or are constituent parts of God's Person. 
That God is omnipresent in his created universe and beyond it 
is a biblical revelation. The unbiblical speculation of the pro- 
gressive professors is that, while the incarnate Christ was not 
God, and did not differ essentially from any other man, yet in his 
glorified state He is God, and as such is organically and vitally 
united to all beings and substances in his universe. They say : — 

his universe is not attached to him externally but vitally. He is not 
a governor set over it, but is its life everywhere. 1 

Every being and thing, then, all worlds and substances, heaven 
and hell and all that are in them, not only have Christ present in 
them, but also are vitally united to Him and consequently cannot 
exist apart from Him. They are all " in Christ" and Christ is 
" in them" by a vital union the destruction of which would be 
the destruction of the universe. The entire universe, therefore, 
and all beings and things in it, existing as they do only through 
their vital relation to Him, are akin to Him and so are as truly 
divine as He is. Indeed, as they all hold Christ in themselves up 
to the full measure of their capacity, and hold Him too as an 

1 Prog. Orth. p. 44. 



Second Particular Complaint. 119 

essential part of their very being, yea, as their very life, so far 
as they do thus hold Him they themselves are Christ. 

Christ and All Other Men Capacious of Deity. 

Such is one of the beliefs of the progressive divines respecting 
Christ. Turn now to another presentation of this same belief 
respecting Christ — a presentation made in pure dogmatism, with- 
out the quotation of a single Scripture, or the setting forth of the 
least particle of any kind of evidence in proof of its truth. 
Speaking of Christ's humanity and comparing that with all other 
humanity, they say : — 

For this humanity was fashioned to be the perfect organ and instru- 
ment of revelation, to be freely swayed and controlled in all its move- 
ments by the will of God, to be more and more filled with his gifts as 
its powers expanded from infancy to maturity, to receive the Spirit 
without measure, to be transfigured by the indwelling Deity, to be 
glorified in God. All its experiences, whether active or passive, were 
those of a nature created capacious of Deity. This is true also of other 
men according to their measure. Indeed, it is the highest note and attribute 
of humanity at large. } [The italics are ours.] 

Certain things in this citation should be carefully considered, 
and a comparison of this citation with those which immediately 
precede it is suggestive of certain vital questions. 

Christ had Only a Created Nature. 

(a) We are informed that all the experiences of Christ's 
humanity, ''whether active or passive, were those of a nature 
created capacious of Deity." Christ's nature, then, was a created 
nature. But according to " Progressive Orthodoxy," as has 
already been shown, he had only one nature and that was his 
human nature. The statement of the Creed, that "the eternal 
Son of God," from the moment of his Incarnation " continues to 
be God and man in two distinct natures ," is again denied in toto 
by the very men who have promised to " maintain and inculcate" 
that statement. Christ, then, in his earthly life had no divine 
nature distinct from his created human nature. He was a man, 
but he was not "God and man." Then he was simply a creature. 
He was only a man, created as all other men are. He was nothing 

1 Prog. Orth. p. 21. 



120 Second Particular Complaint. 

more and nothing less than a man. All Unitarians would be 
satisfied with this view of Christ. True, these progressive 
divines speak of the "divine nature" of Christ, and use other 
phraseology which implies that our Lord was something more 
than a man. Yet their theory and their dominating representa- 
tion, we submit, is that Christ, however unique, great, and good 
he may have been, had only a human nature and therefore was 
only a man. But this is Unitarianism ; and Andover Seminary 
was founded and endowed with the expressed intention of oppos- 
ing Unitarianism. Moreover the defendant and all his progressive 
compeers have given their pledge over their own names that, as 
honorable Christian men, they will faithfully carry out this prime 
intention of the Founders. 

Christ had No Experience that was Not Human. 

(b) We are also informed that " all the experiences " of Christ's 
humanity were those of a created human nature. None of his 
experiences, therefore, were those of an uncreated divine nature. 
Yet, according to the Creed, He once had a divine nature abso- 
lutely distinct from, and unconnected with, a human nature. Before 
his Incarnation He was " the eternal Son of God," " the same in 
substance, equal in power and glory" with "the Father and the 
Holy Ghost." But if He became man, and only man, with no 
'''-distinct" divine nature, what became of "the eternal Son of 
God " ? Did He die ? Was He blotted out of existence ! If not, 
where was He? He had become the man Christ Jesus, but in that 
man he was not " the eternal Son of God" conscious of his Deity. 
What, then, and where was He? What answer can be given to 
these questions? The simple truth is that the assertion of the 
progressive professors, that Christ in his earthly life had no divine 
uncreated nature distinct from his created human nature, is a 
positive denial that there was any Incarnation whatever of the 
absolute, eternal Son of God in the man Christ Jesus. 

Christ Divine, but Not God. 

(c) We are likewise instructed to believe that Christ's human 
nature was " created capacious of Deity." And it is frankly and 
significantly added that " This is true also of other men accord- 



Second Particular Complaint. 121 

ing to their measure. Indeed, it is the highest note and attribute 
of humanity at large." That is, the Incarnate Christ had no 
distinctively divine nature, but his human nature was divine in 
the sense that it was a receptacle of Deity ; yet in this respect he 
did not differ in the least from other men. All men are recepta- 
cles of Deity and therefore have a nature as truly divine as was 
that of Christ. Christ may have been more " capacious of Deity" 
than most men, estimating his capaciousness by dry measure ; but 
all men are "capacious of Deity," each "according to his own 
measure." 

This whole conception of God in his relation to the man Christ 
Jesus, and to all other men, is intensely materialistic and mechani- 
cal. God is not thought of as a Person, a Spirit, infinite, om- 
nipresent, immutable, and indivisible, but as a certain substance 
called Deity, which exists in quantity and can be divided and 
measured off, and poured into the man called Jesus, and into 
every other man, according to the measurement of their capa- 
ciousness carefully estimated in figures. The process of filling 
up all these capacious human receptacles is evidently by emana- 
tion or efflux from God considered as the great orb or reservoir 
of Deity. Nor is Deity poured into men only. All other beings 
and creatures, all worlds and things are capacious of Deity, and 
they all receive their apportionments of Deity, each according to 
its measure. All nature is alive with Deity, the Deity being not 
a person but life. In a citation above made from The Andover 
Review, for October, 1892, we are told that 

there is kinship between God and nature. It is not separate from Him, 
nor exclusive of Him, but is open at every point, in every atom, to his 
indwelling. . . . With humanity He is more closely akin. . . . And if 
God lives in nature so that He can be known there, if He reveals himself 
in and to the reason and conscience of man, much more, it is easy to 
believe, could He reveal himself through, or unite himself to, or live in, 
that person who is confessed to be the best, the holiest, the most akin 
to God of all men who have ever lived. 

That is, as God is vitally united to, and lives in, the grass and the 
trees and the beasts, and is akin to them, so, only more closely, 
He was united to and dwelt in the man Christ Jesus. Such, and 
only such, was the Incarnation ! God was united to, and dwelt in,, 
the man of Nazareth in precisely the same way in which He is 



122 Second Particular Complaint. 

united to and is dwelling to-day in every man and in all nature ! 
Then every man living to-day is an incarnation of God as truly 
as Christ was, and after the same manner. And the manner of 
God's dwelling in our Lord and Redeemer in his earthly life was 
not at all different from the manner in which He is now dwelling 
in all the beasts of the field and in all nature. He is "more 
closely " united to man than to the beast. That is all the differ- 
ence. He was " more closely" united to the man Christ Jesus 
than to any other man. That was all. The union in kind is 
everywhere the same. Christ was a greater man, more capacious 
of Deity, and a better man than any other man ; but all this 
would make him simply a unique man, and no amount of such 
uniqueness could make him anything more than a man. In fact, 
our adorable Lord and Saviour, according to " Progressive Ortho- 
doxy," in his earthly life was only a fine product of the law of 
natural selection, a survival of the fittest ; and there have been in 
history multitudes of such human products and survivals, all fine 
and fit according to the measure of their capaciousness of Deity. 
Indeed, in this view, every man is as truly a God-man as was the 
Lord Jesus himself. If men in general are not God-men, then 
Christ was not a God-man, for in his earthly life Christ's relation 
to God was in kind precisely that of every other man. If Christ 
was not " a mere man," then no man is " a mere man." If men 
in general are mere men, then Christ was "a mere man." If, 
indeed, it be true that Christ's relation to God was not different 
in kind from that of every other man, then there was in him no 
incarnation of the eternal Son of God, unless every man is an 
incarnation of God's eternal Son. 

If it should be said by the defence in reply that the historic 
Christ was the highest and grandest of all created beings, and 
therefore was something more than "a mere man," though not 
the absolute God, then the defendant would announce himself an 
Arian. But Arianism is one of the errors which the professor has 
solemnly promised to oppose. But he nowhere claims to be an 
Arian. He does, however, most emphatically deny the belief — 
he even attempts to ridicule the belief — that Christ in his earthly 
life was God. "The belief concerning Jesus," he affirms, "is 
not that God in all his absoluteness, omniscience, and omnipo- 
tence took on the form of a man and walked about among men in 



Second Particular Complaint. 123 

Galilee, so that Jesus knew all occurrences on earth and through 
the universe, and was conscious that he created the stars." What, 
then, is "the belief concerning Jesus"? It is this: "that God 
was in Christ, so far as God can manifest his life in a human per- 
sonality at a given period in history." (Italics ours.) Surely, 
then, the Incarnate Son of God was nothing but " a human per- 
sonality at a given period in history," having in itself as much of 
God's life as it had capacity to hold and manifest. But the de- 
fendant declares in "Progressive Orthodoxy," p. 21, that " This 
is true also of other men according to their measure." Christ 
had in him more of God's life than other men have, not because 
he was other than a man, but only because he was more " capa- 
cious of Deity." But this capaciousness was a part of his man- 
hood, and, as we have already said, made him nothing but a 
mere man. The life of God in him was also a part .of his man- 
hood, and no more made him God than it makes any other man 
God, or makes a living tree God. According to this shockingly 
materialistic theory, we repeat, God is to be regarded as existing 
in quantity and as capable of being weighed and measured, 
divided and distributed. If the average man holds, say one 
measure of Deity, Christ holds, perhaps, ten measures of Deity. 
But neither the average man nor the Lord Jesus in his earthly 
life is capable of containing more than the smallest fraction of 
God. Our incarnate Lord and every other man have in themselves, 
as identical with their very life and being, measurable parts of the 
very life and being of God each according to the measure of his 
own capaciousness. We cannot help asking ; when we have set 
aside the very life and being of a man, what is there left to be 
capacious of anything? Nevertheless, such is the theory of these 
progressive divines. The man Christ Jesus, like every other 
man, contains, as the life and the very essence of his being, a 
certain small fraction of the life and very essence of God's being ; 
yet he is infinitely removed from being God. The teachers of 
" Progressive Orthodoxy " declare that Christ, when he " walked 
among men in Galilee," was not " God and man," as the Creed 
affirms he was. He was not " the absolute God," " very God," 
truly God. " He was not conscious that he created the stars." 
If he ever did create them, he had forgotten all about it. Still he 
had in him as much of God as u a human personality" could have 



124 Second Particular Complaint. 

had " at that period in history." If he had been born in some 
other period, in our own, for instance, and had come under all its 
light and culture, and specially if he had been developed under 
the advanced thought of " Progressive Orthodoxy" and under the 
personal training of the progressive professors at Andover, he 
would doubtless have been far more capacious of Deity. But, in 
fact, he had in him only so much as was possible to him in his 
own little country and in his own benighted period in history. 
Such was the divinity of our Lord and Saviour according to 
"Progressive Orthodoxy." This whole conception of the being of 
God, and of the constitution of the Person of his eternal Son, in 
our view comes perilously near to blasphemy. When this "be- 
lief," as it is called, is fully understood we are much mistaken if 
it is not found to be simply shocking to every reverent Christian 
mind. But such is " the belief" of the Andover progressives re- 
specting God and his Son Jesus Christ, and we cannot avoid the 
conviction that it sets forth the eternal Son of God in his Incar- 
nate life as nothing but " a mere man" weak, ignorant, fallible, 
and utterly incompetent to be the Saviour of the world. 

A Possible Reply of the Defendant. 

If now in reply to all this, the defendant should say: "We 
use figurative language, and you have no right to interpret 
such language literally ; we use the familiar phrase capax Dei, 
simply as a figure of speech, meaning by it that man has the 
capacity or power to receive God, and especially God in Christ, 
and to become united to Him, through faith, repentance, love, 
sympathy," — if the defendant makes this reply, our answer is 
that these progressives have nowhere said that such is their 
meaning. But they have repeatedly represented that such is 
not their meaning. They have denied over and over that man 
of himself has any such personal power. Their teaching is that 
all men are u in Christ"; and that Christ is in all men, filling 
them with Deity, according to the measure of their capaciousness, 
not through their faith and love, but antecedent to faith, repent- 
ance, love, and obedience ; that all men are united to Christ, not 
by any external attachment, as one separate being may become 
attached to another by sympathy, trust, and love, but by an 
internal and vital union ; as in a human person his body from 



Second Particular Complaint. 125 

the first moment of his existence is vitally united to his head, 
not in any figure of speech, but in reality. This asserted union 
of every man with Christ is a vital, living union, an actual 
identification of all human beings with the Lord Jesus, they 
constituting the body of which He is the Head. 

It is not "Progressive Orthodoxy," but Consistent Calvinism, 
which teaches that only those who believe on Christ receive Him 
and become united to Him. This union, moreover, is not a 
union in essence of being, but in love, — a union of heart with 
heart, — a union which is attained only through personal repent- 
ance, faith, and the new birth, and which alone secures in man 
spiritual kinship to Christ and likeness to Him in character, 
purpose, and life. This is the closest, dearest, and most blessed 
bond by which a redeemed sinner can ever be united to his 
Redeemer. To describe this ineffably tender and holy relation 
of penitent and trustful sinners to their Lord and Saviour, Con- 
sistent Calvinism, as well as Christ and the apostles, uses all 
manner of apt illustrations. But no imagery, or any other human 
language, is equal to the task of adequately portraying this 
beatific and glorious union. 

All Men in Vital Union with Christ. — Pantheism. 

But this exalted, personal relation of believing sinners to the 
Lord Jesus is not the union which "Progressive Orthodoxy" 
glorifies. These progressives believe in a race-union with Christ. 
" The race," they say, " is reconstituted in Christ." This is not 
the doctrine of the reconstitution of individual sinners through 
their personal repentance and faith, under the regenerating power 
of the Holy Spirit of God, but the doctrine of the divine imma- 
nence reconstituting every human soul. "Progressive Ortho- 
doxy " makes no account of union with Christ through faith. 
Its pervasive and all-controlling idea is that of the indwelling 
of Christ, not in believers only, but in all men, irrespective of 
any consent or act of their own, and irrespective of their moral 
character. Moreover this unscriptural and immoral idea of the 
indwelling of Christ in all men before they have any personal 
experience of the new birth, or of saving faith and repentance, 
is confessedly only " an integral part " of the larger conception 
of the indwelling of God as the one and only life of the universe. 



126 Second Particular Complaint. 

This larger conception is not that God is the Creator of universal 
life, but that He is that life. 1 

It must never be forgotten that the root idea of " Progressive 
Orthodoxy " is Pantheism. But Pantheism does not need to be set 
forth in figures of speech. It is itself such a literal, organic, and 
vital union of the entire universe with God that each is identi- 
cally the other. Not in figure of speech, but in reality, all 
existences are in God ; and God is in them, not by his omni- 
presence, not as other than they, but as identically one with them. 
This, we venture to affirm, will be found to be the germinal and 
increasingly regnant principle in "Progressive Orthodoxy." It 
is an old pagan notion. It was accepted as very truth by 
heathen in ancient Greece and India, and thence was exported 
to other lands ; but it has been long dead and buried in most 
Christian communities. The Andover progressives, however, 
have rediscovered and exhumed the mouldering body of this dead 
speculation. They have breathed into it a little spasmodic life 
and have baptized it with a new name. With great shoutings 
and blare of brazen trumpets they are now offering their discovery 
to the astonished world as a sample of their own new and 
advanced beliefs. They are fascinated with their prize very 
much — to change the figure — as little children might be with 
the flashing eye and glassy head of a deadly serpent, long torpid 
but just now come to life, but of whose real nature they know 
nothing. The deadly nature, however, of this old pagan Pan- 
theism, once more waked to life, will not, we venture to predict, 
be long concealed. 

(d) We now raise the question, What is the evangelical 
doctrine respecting the constitution of Christ's Person which 
is required by the Statutes to be taught in Andover Seminary ? 

The Associate Founders of the Seminary were Hopkinsians, 
but they called themselves, and preferred to be called, Consist- 
ent Calvinists. They accepted the doctrines of Christianity as 
defined and preached by Dr. Samuel Hopkins, Dr. Jonathan 
Edwards the younger, Dr. Joseph Bellamy, and other followers 
of the famous Jonathan Edwards the elder. Their theology was 
definite, positive, and thoroughly evangelistic. Consistent Calvin- 
ism has been called " the New England Theology," and, among 

*See Prog. Orth. pp. 43, 44; also, Andover Review, April, 1890, p. 439. 



Second Particular Complaint. 127 

Presbyterians more especially, "the New School Theology." 
These names are modern, but the theology itself is substantially 
that which in all the Christian ages has been, under God, the 
inspiration of about everything that has been done for the 
evangelization of communities, nations, and the world. The 
Consistent Calvinists, who took the leading part in founding 
Andover Seminary under its present Statutes, intended at first 
to found a Theological Institution at Newbury, Massachusetts. 
The funds were pledged and a Creed was prepared for that pro- 
posed institution. The Creed was written by Dr. Samuel Spring 
in consultation with Dr. Leonard Woods, Dr. Nathanael Emmons, 
and other Consistent Calvinists. That Creed unchanged became, 
and is now, the Creed of Andover Seminary. The Seminary 
Creed, therefore, is not " a compromise creed." Dr. Leonard 
Woods, one of the authors of this famous symbol of faith, and 
for so many years Professor of Systematic Theology in the 
Seminary, and who knew whereof he affirmed, informs us in his 
"History of Andover Seminary" that the identical Creed which 
was written by Consistent Calvinists for their proposed theologi- 
cal institution at Newbury was accepted by the Founders and 
became the unalterable Creed of Andover Seminary. 1 

Thus the theology which this Seminary was founded to teach 
is Consistent Calvinism. Indeed, the Associate Statutes require, 
in the most positive terms, that every professor on the Associate 
Foundation shall be "an Orthodox and Consistent Calvinist" — a 
designation at first and now of most definite and well-known 
import. 

The Evangelical Doctrine of the Constitution of 
Christ's Person. 

What now is that doctrine respecting the constitution of Christ's 
Person which was and is held by all Consistent Calvinists and 
which is required by the Andover Creed and Statutes to be taught 
in the Andover Seminary? Dr. Nathanael Emmons, himself a 
Consistent Calvinist, and who assisted his brother-in-law, Dr. 
Spring, in writing the Andover Creed, has stated the doctrine of 
the two natures in the one Person of Christ, as it is held by all 
Consistent Calvinists, in language as remarkable for its scholarly 

1 See Wood's History of the ADdover Seminary, pp. 99, 100. 



128 Second Particular Complaint. 

precision and clearness as the language of "Progressive Ortho- 
doxy" is for its unscholarly vagueness and equivocalness. In 
answer to the question, "What is meant by Christ's human na- 
ture being personally united with his divine nature ? " he says : — 

It does not mean that his human nature was made divine nature. 
Omnipotence could not transform his humanity into divinity, because 
that would be the same as to produce divinity, or create a Creator. 
But supposing his human nature could have been made divine nature ; 
yet that would have prevented his being God and man in two natures 
and but one person, which is what he professed to be. 

Nor, on the other hand, does his human nature's being personally 
united with his divine nature mean, that his divine nature was made 
human nature. For there was the same impossibility of degrading his 
divinity into humanity, as of exalting his humanity into divinity. And 
could this have been done, it would have equally prevented his being 
what he professed to be, God and man in one person. 

Nor does his human nature's being personally united with his 
divine nature, mean that his two natures were mixed or blended to- 
gether. For it evidently appears, from Scripture, that he personally 
possessed every divine perfection and every human quality, except sin. 
He discovered, in the course of his life, human ignorance and divine 
knowledge; human wants and divine fulness; human weakness and 
divine power; human dependence and divine independence. 

But, if the personal union of the two natures in Christ does not 
mean, that his humanity became divinity nor his divinity became human- 
ity, nor that these were mixed or blended together, then the question 
still lecurs, what is meant by Christ's being one person in two natures? 
I answer, the man Jesus, who had a true body and a reasonable soul, 
was united with the second person in the Trinity, in such a manner as 
laid a foundation for him to say with propriety that he was man, 
that he was God, and that he was both God and man ; and as laid a 
foundation also to ascribe what he did as God and suffered as man, to 
one and the self-same person. If any should here ask, how could his 
two natures be thus personally united? We can only say, it is a mys- 
tery. And there is no avoiding a mystery with respect to Christ. His 
conception was a mystery. And if we admit the mystery of his con- 
ception, why should we hesitate to admit the mystery of the personal 
union between his two natures ? If we only admit this, all Christ said 
concerning himself is easy and intelligible. 1 

Upon the preceding page Dr. Emmons says : — 

There remains no other ground, therefore, upon which he [Christ] 
could assert his divinity, but that of his being God and man, in two dis- 

1 Works of Nathanael Emmons, d.d., Boston, 1842, vol. iv, p. 591. 



Second Particular Complaint. 129 

tinct natures and one person. [Italics ours.] A personal union between 
his divine and human natures would properly constitute him a divine 
person. And it appears from his own expressions that he did assert 
his divinity upon this ground. He says, ' No man hath ascended up to 
heaven but he that came down from heaven, even the Son of man, 
which is in heaven.' Here he represents his one individual person as 
being both in heaven and on earth, at one and the same time. And 
upon the supposition of his human and divine natures being personally 
united, he might properly say this ; but upon no other supposition. 

A Legal Interpretation op the Creed-statement. 

These statements of Dr> Emmons must be accepted as an 
authoritative interpretation of the language of the Andover Creed, 
where it says that " the eternal Son of God" " became man, and 
continues to be God and man in two distinct natures and one per- 
son forever." The very phrase of the Creed, "in two distinct 
natures and one person," is found in the second of the above 
citations from Dr. Emmons. This is significant. Dr. Emmons 
assisted in the writing of the Creed. He stands in history as 
one of the greatest of New England's great theologians. He 
was one of the class who called themselves Consistent Calvinists. 
He knew what that Consistent Calvinism is which Andover Sem- 
inary was founded to maintain and inculcate. The above cita- 
tions, therefore, constitute a trustworthy and legal interpretation 
of the language of the Andover Creed respecting the two natures 
in the one Person of Christ. And we affirm, without fear of 
contradiction, that these declarations of Dr. Emmons, and the 
affirmations of the defendant already cited from The Andover 
Review and " Progressive Orthodoxy," upon the great doctrine 
of the Deity of our Lord in his earthly life, are in absolute and 
irreconcilable antagonism. 

The Defendant in Conflict with the Creed. 

Dr. Emmons and the Andover Creed declare that Christ in his 
earthly life was possessed of infinite attributes. The defendant 
affirms that our Lord was not then possessed of infinite attributes. 
Dr. Emmons and the Andover Creed declare that Christ in his 
earthly life was " God and man" — absolute God and real man. 
The defendant declares that our Lord was not absolute God — 
that is, was not "God and man" in the sense given to these 



130 Second Particular Complaint. 

words by Consistent Calvinism. Dr. Emmons and the Andover 
Creed affirm that our Lord when in the flesh had ' ' two distinct 
natures," a divine nature and a human nature. But the defend- 
ant, in The Andover Review and in " Progressive Orthodoxy," 
as already shown, denies that our Lord while in the flesh had " two 
distinct natures," but teaches that he had only one nature, and 
that a human nature, which human nature is divine only in the 
sense in which every man's human nature is divine. Consist- 
ent Calvinism, according to Dr. Emmons, denies that Christ's 
"human nature was made divine nature." But "Progressive 
Orthodoxy " teaches that Christ's human nature ivas made divine 
nature, in the same sense in which all human nature is made 
divine, and in no other sense. Consistent Calvinism, as repre- 
sented by Dr. Emmons, denies that Christ's " divine nature was 
made human nature." But "Progressive Orthodoxy" teaches 
that Christ had no divine nature distinct from his human nature ; 
that he had divineness, but all the divineness he had was in his 
human nature ; and that all men have a like divineness, the 
amount of which in Christ and in all men is determined by the 
measure of the capacity of each individual to receive Deity. 
Consistent Calvinism, according to Dr. Emmons, affirms that the 
two natures in the one Person of Christ were not ' ' mixed or 
blended together. For it evidently appears from Scripture that 
he personally possessed every divine perfection, and every human 
quality except sin." But "Progressive Orthodoxy," while it 
denies the existence of "two distinct natures" in Christ, yet 
sometimes appears to teach that divinity and humanity were 
" mixed or blended together " in Christ, and also in every other 
man. Consistent Calvinism, as expounded by Dr. Emmons, 
states the Scriptural doctrine of the union of the two natures in 
the one person of Christ in this language : — 

The man Jesus . . . was united with the second person in the Trinity 
in such a manner as laid a foundation for him to say with propriety 
that he was man, that he was God, and that he was God and man ; and 
as laid a foundation also to ascribe what he did as God and suffered as 
man, to one and the self -same person. 

Dr. Emmons, speaking as a Consistent Calvinist, does not pre- 
tend to understand and explain the manner of this union of 
" God and man" in the one Person of Christ. He simply says, 



Second Particular Complaint. 131 

" It is a mystery." But the defendant represents that in the one 
person of Christ, in his earthly life, there was no such mystery as 
the union of a human nature with the divine nature of the 
eternal Son of God, who was "the same in substance, equal 
in power and glory " with the Father and the Holy Ghost. But 
"it is the belief," he dogmatically affirms, "that God was in 
Christ so far as God can manifest his life in a human personal- 
ity at a given period in history." 1 The defendant also declares 
that " all the experiences, whether active or passive " of Christ's 
humanity "were those of a nature created capacious of Deity." 
And he adds, " This is true also of other men according to their 
measure." 2 (Italics ours.) Thus in the view of the defendant, 
there is evidently no more mystery in the union of the divine and 
the human in the one Person of Christ than there is in the union 
of the divine and the human in any other man. The only mys- 
tery in either case is that of the organic and vital union of God 
with all men and creatures and things in the universe — the mys- 
tery of Pantheism. 

But what we wish to press upon the attention of the Board of 
Visitors is the undeniable and irreconcilable conflict between Con- 
sistent Calvinism and "Progressive Orthodoxy" upon the great 
and decisive question of the Deity of our Lord in his earthly life. 
We claim to have demonstrated that the defendant, in " Progress- 
ive Orthodoxy" and in his other writings, does not teach, upon 
this vital question, the doctrine of the Creed and of Consistent 
Calvinism, which he has promised to teach, but that he denies this 
doctrine of the Creed in toto. 

A Finite Being Becomes an Infinite Being. 

(e) But we must not forget that while these progressives hold 
that the eternal Son of God in his earthly life was not "God and 
man in two distinct natures," — was not, indeed, the absolute 
God at all, — but only a man capacious of Deity as are all other 
men and creatures according to their measure, yet these divines 
also hold that Christ in his glorified state, both before and after 
his Incarnation, was truly the absolute God, omniscient, omni- 
present, almighty, the Creator, who in some sense made all things, 
and without whom was not anything made that was made. 

1 Andover Review, October, 1S92, p. 398. 2 Prog. Orth. p. 21. 



132 Second Particular Complaint. 

It must also be kept in mind that, according to "Progressive 
Orthodoxy," while this same eternal Son of God in his earthly life 
had only a human nature, and was as truly ignorant, weak, and 
limited in all his faculties and powers as any other man at that 
period in history, yet in his glorified existence He was once and is 
now the life of his own entire universe, attached to every being 
and thing in it " not externally but vitally," so that if the attach- 
ment were broken, the universe would perish. 

Vital Questions. 

(/) Now in view of these beliefs, set forth with so much confi- 
dence by the defendant and his progressive associates, we mod- 
estly raise this question : When the eternal Son of God, the 
Second Distinction in the Godhead, " the same in substance, equal 
in power and glory " with the Father and the Holy Ghost — when 
He ceased to be God, and became -man with only a human nature, 
what became of the universe of which He, and He alone, was the 
life? Did it perish at the first moment of the Incarnation? If 
it did not perish, then did the Creator and the Preserver of all 
things in his Incarnation cease to be God? 

Another question : When the Second Distinction in the Trinity, 
"the same in substance, equal in power and glory" with the 
Father and the Holy Ghost, ceased to be God, and became man, 
with only a human nature, what became of the Triune God him- 
self ? Was an infinite vacancy made in his Being ? Did the im- 
mutable God become, in the Incarnation, changeable and imper- 
fect? Was there suddenly an inconceivably vast deficiency in the 
very constitution of the Godhead ? Was not only the universe, 
but even the Triune God himself, blotted out of existence at the 
first moment of the Incarnation ? If not, then did the eternal Son 
of God cease to be God when He became man ? 

The defendant and his progressive compeers claim that they 
are standing for liberty to hold and teach the truth as they under- 
stand it — "the larger, broader truth of to-day." Judged by 
their own public utterances, their position appears to be that if, 
for instance, the Andover Creed, which they have entered into a 
contract to " maintain and inculcate," does not, in their opinion, 
state the truth respecting the Deity of our Lord in his earthly life, 
then the way out of their difficulty is not for them to resign their 



Second Particular Complaint. 133 

professorships, but to stand at all costs for liberty to break their 
promises and to teach what they believe to be the truth upon this 
momentous subject, in spite of the Creed, of the decision of the 
Visitors, and of the known belief and intention of the Founders. 
We take them for a moment upon their own legally and morally 
false ground, and ask, What is the truth respecting the Deity of 
our Lord in his earthly life? Is it the simple, clear, and scriptural 
statement of the Creed, or is it what we have shown to be the 
pantheistic vagaries, the sheer dogmatism, the brazen self-contra- 
dictions, and the absolute absurdities of " Progressive Ortho- 
doxy " ? Is it true that the finite can become infinite ? 

The Andover Creed Glorifies Christ. 
Fifthly, Consistent Calvinism, as formulated in the Andover 
Creed, exalts and honors our Incarnate Lord by distinctly affirming 
his absolute Deity, and thus instructing the Seminary students, 
and through them the world, to adore and glorify Him to whom, 
while He was yet in the flesh, his disciples unrebuked paid honors 
due only to the Most High, and who was declared by the Apostle 
Paul to be " over all, God blessed forever," at the same time that 
He was of human descent, or, in other words, was truly man. 

The " New Theology Degrades Christ." 
But " Progressive Orthodoxy," as set forth in recent editorials 
and in earlier publications of the progressive professors, dishon- 
ors our Incarnate Redeemer by denying that He was "Qod and 
man in two distinct natures" and by representing that he was 
only " capacious of Deity" in the same sense in which all other 
men and creatures are, thus instructing the Seminary students, 
and through them multitudes of people, to degrade our adorable 
Saviour in their thoughts and belief to the level of mere men 
and other creatures. 

Upon this high matter, therefore, of exalting and adoring 
Christ as the unchangeable Son of God, the antagonism of 
"Progressive Orthodoxy" to the Andover Creed and Statutes is 
intense and absolute. The pantheistic idea of God advocated by 
the new-departure professors, which represents him as existing 
in quantity, as capable of being divided into portions and dis- 
tributed to all men and creatures, to each according to his capa- 
ciousness mathematically measured, dishonors the Almighty by 



134 Second Particular Complaint. 

divesting him of his personality. The pantheistic conception of 
our Incarnate Lord as having only a human nature and as being 
simply receptive of Deity as are all men, beings, and things in 
the universe according to their measure mathematically estimated, 
degrades Christ, by divesting him of the eternity and unchange- 
ableness of his Deity. No indignity greater than this can be put 
upon the eternal Son of God. Let us not be deceived. Panthe- 
ism is a subtle and seductive error. Comparatively few people 
of evangelical faith, however intelligent they may be, are familiar 
with pantheistic thought and theories. This gives Pantheism a 
marked advantage, which it has not been slow to improve. To 
say that Christ Jesus ' ' was capacious of Deity " may seem to 
some minds simply a true and orthodox statement. But "Pro- 
gressive Orthodox}; " gives utterance to the same sentiment in 
plainer words when it says that " God was in Christ, so far as 
God can manifest his life in a human personality at a given 
period in history." It also gives expression to this same panthe- 
istic conception in terms still more perspicuous when it repre- 
sents that as God was in the Lord Jesus, so is He in all men, 
beings, and things in the universe, according to the measure of 
their capaciousness. The regnant principle here is unmistakable 
and undeniable. It is Pantheism. The man Christ Jesus and all 
men, all beings, and all nature are replete with Deity. They all 
have God in themselves, not by his presence merely, but by his 
being organically and vitally united to themselves. Hence, all 
men and all nature are as truly divine as the Lord Jesus was. 
They do not all, however, have the same amount of divineness, 
but each being and thing has its portion. The conception is 
largely materialistic and mechanical. The question of Christ's 
divinity and of the divinity of every man, beast, and thing be- 
comes a mere question of quantity. God exists in the universe 
in parts, which are circumscribed and measured off. Everything 
has God in it, so far as it is capable of holding and manifesting 
Him. Of course God may transcend the beings and things which 
contain only portions of Him in vital union with themselves. 
Still, according to this theory, God is not infinite. Nothing is in- 
finite that is made up of parts ; but some things are more capa- 
cious of Deity than others are. A towering and broad-spreading 
elm tree has more of God in it than a mullein stock has. A turtle 



Second Particular Complaint. 135 

has more of God within it and vitally united to it than an oyster 
has ; an ox has more of God in him than a turtle has ; a man 
has more of God than an ox has. Some men have more of God 
in vital union with themselves than other men have. The man 
Christ Jesus had more of God vitally united to himself than any 
other man had " at Christ's period in history." He was a mere 
man, but among men he was a unique person. His uniqueness 
was his larger amount of divineness. He was conscious of his 
superior divineness ; but he was not conscious of being God, for 
he was not God. Lord Bacon was a unique person on account 
of his extraordinary intellectual power. He was more capacious 
of God than most men were at his period in history, and this 
larger amount of divinity in him constituted his uniqueness. 
All humanity is divine because it is vitally united to God. God 
is in every man as his life, and therefore as an essential part 
of his being ; and every man is in God as an essential part of 
his Being. This is "the divinity of humanity" of which we 
have recently heard so much. After the same manner God is 
vitally united to, and identified with, the entire universe. This is 
outright Pantheism. The defendant, of course, will deny this 
statement ; but we challenge him to show how this theory of 
God's relation to the world and to all beings and things in it 
differs essentially from the old heathen Pantheism of ancient 
Greece and India. 

The Teaching in Andover Lecture Rooms. 

According to the belief and teaching of the defendant, as the 
complainants charge, Christ in his earthly life was a being 
limited in all his attributes, capacities, and attainments. In 
proof of this charge, we claim to have shown, from the writings 
of the defendant, that he holds and teaches, as a doctrine of his 
" new theology," that Christ, in the days of his humiliation, was 
not God ; that he was divine only in the sense in which all men 
are divine ; that he was a member, and nothing more than a 
member, of the hjiman race ; that like all other men he was 
ignorant ; and that he made mistakes and blunders, and did not 
know that he made them. 

In further evidence that such is the teaching of u Progressive 
Orthodoxy," we now add, that similar views of the ignorance of 



136 Second Particular Complaint. 

our incarnate Lord have been set forth in at least one of the 
lecture rooms in Andover Seminary, under the instruction of an 
advocate of "the new theology." Students at the public exam- 
inations are expected to present the views which have been 
maintained and inculcated by their instructors. At such an ex- 
amination held some two years ago, a student boldly represented 
that Christ in his earthly life was so ignorant that he did not 
always know the nature of the diseases he healed. For instance, 
he supposed that he cast devils out of the demoniacs at Gadara, 
when, without much doubt, he only cured them of epilepsy. In 
his own opinion, that student who was under examination, living 
as he does in a more enlightened "period in history," knows 
more than Christ knew, and can correct his errors ; and at the 
examination he claimed that under the instruction of his theo- 
logical teacher he had corrected one of them. This student, 
therefore, in this particular of superior personal knowledge, has 
more divineness in him than Christ had. The professor has 
more knowledge than the student has, and so in this particular 
has more of God in him than the student contained. For God 
is light as well as life ; he is truth and knowledge as well as 
power and goodness. 

The apostle John affirms that ' ' In the beginning was the 
Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. . . . 
All things were made by him ; and without him was not anything 
made that was made." But according to the progressive teach- 
ing, when the Word became flesh and walked about among men 
in Galilee his memory failed him utterly. He had not the least 
recollection of his stupendous work of creation. John, it seems, 
knew that He who became flesh created the worlds, and that 
without Him was not anything made that was made. But the 
eternal Son of God Incarnated, the progressive professors inform 
us, was " not conscious that He created the stars." The disciple 
John, then, when he wrote the Fourth Gospel, knew more about 
his Lord than his Incarnate Lord knew about himself. John, 
therefore, had more divinity in him than Christ Incarnate had. 
Why, then, should we not have more confidence in the revelations 
of John than in those of Christ? If Christ was so ignorant in 
the days of his humiliation, how can we accept the declarations 
he then made respecting the Father and his will, respecting the 



Second Particular Complaint. 137 

Holy Spirit and the way of salvation, or believe any of his 
affirmations concerning his own mission and kingdom, concerning 
his power to forgive sins, and to secure to penitent and believing 
sinners the life everlasting with himself in glory ineffable ? Can 
any man in his public teaching impute such ignorance and falli- 
bility to the Redeemer of lost men without doing his best to de- 
grade the Person of that Redeemer, and to defame his character 
before the world ? Who will deny that this debasing view of the 
Lord Jesus must be regarded as one of those doctrinal errors 
which every professor refers to, when, in taking the Creed, he 
solemnly promises that he will oppose "all heresies and errors, 
ancient or modern, which may be opposed to the gospel of Christ, 
or hazardous to the souls of men " ? Can any intelligent person 
believe that the holding and teaching of such low and derogatory 
views respecting Christ, by any professor on the Andover Foun- 
dations, is not a gross violation of a most sacred promise and an 
open defiance of the Constitution and Statutes of the Seminary? 

Miracles of Our Lord the Product op Natural Human 

Forces. 

But still further reproach is cast upon our Lord and Saviour by 
these progressive professors, in one of their recent editorials, 
through their manner of accounting for his miracles. They con- 
descendingly admit that his miracles were uot mere wonders and 
deceptions, but were real and beneficent deeds. His healing 
power is thought by them to have been " inherent," whatever that 
may mean. Their purpose evidently is to explain the miracles of 
our Lord as resulting from the working of purely natural forces, 
to the utter exclusion of all supernatural power in Christ. Re- 
ferring to our Lord's power of instantaneous healing they say : — 

It has been aptly called his health-power. The healing influence of a 
healthy person over a diseased person has had many illustrations and, 
at the present time, is recognized, as it never has been before, as the exer- 
cise of a real power which is but little understood. Such a power Jesus 
had to the fullest degree. That which is vaguely suggested by modern 
mind cure, faith cure, or even, possibly, by hypnotic and mesmeric influ- 
ence was complete in Jesus. It is much more probable that he had such 
a health-power over bodies and minds than that the narrative of his 
healings is a pure fabrication, or an unfounded tradition. 1 

1 Andover Review, October, 1892, p. 398. 



138 Second Particular Complaint. 

That is, our Lord's mighty works of mercy, wrought in relief 
of the blind, the lame, the deaf, the lepers, wrought in the 
instantaneous creating of food sufficient to feed thousands 
of hungry men and women, in casting out devils, and in rais- 
ing the dead to life, were not supernatural at all, but were 
accomplished by the man Christ Jesus in the exercise of natural 
powers known to be possessed by other men in various degrees. 
These human powers were abnormally great in Christ. He was 
not God. He did not create the stars. But he was a mon- 
strosity of human health-power, and of other powers merely 
human. 

Other Christs Should Appear. 

If such views of our Incarnate Redeemer are true, there is no 
reason whatever why other Christs should not have appeared 
on the earth long before this time. Indeed, among all the myriads 
of men there ought to be at least a few Christs living now ; and if 
these professors are teaching a "real theology," as they declare 
they are, they are bound to find a real Christ now in the flesh and 
put him on exhibition. Perhaps some one of these progressive 
professors themselves is the very man of whom it shall soon be 
said, " Lo ! here is Christ ! " But whatever marvelous evolutions 
of humanity are yet to come, some things will abide. The gospel 
of Christ is an " everlasting" and a changeless gospel. The An- 
dover Creed is by statute unchangeably what it is. Honesty and 
dishonesty will remain forever the very same things they always 
have been ; and we submit that no man who does not believe 
that "the Eternal Son of God" " became man and continues to 
be God and man, in two distinct natures and one person forever," 
can ever honestly, or by any moral or legal right, occupy a pro- 
fessor's chair in Andover Seminary. 

A Protest in the Name of the Founders. 

We cannot close this part of our argument without, in the 
name of the Founders of this Seminary and in memory of their 
reverent piety, putting on record our protest against the deroga- 
tory and impious representation of the being and character of 
our Lord which the defendant and his associates have made in 
their explanation of his miracles. The suggestion that the Incar- 



Second Particular Complaint. 139 

nate Son of God was a mesmerizer, and wrought some of his 
miracles " by hypnotic and mesmeric influence," seems to us to be 
as shocking to reverent piety as it is revolting to refined and 
scholarly taste. We cannot but think that such language con- 
cerning our Lord and Saviour, if heard amidst the profanity 
and tobacco-smoke of a crowded barroom, would even there be 
deemed indecent and sacrilegious. How then should it be charac- 
terized when it is uttered by a professor in an evangelical Theo- 
logical Seminary? How is this utterance to be accounted for? 
Of what can it be the product, if not of impiety or of senility or 
of insanity ? We judge no man ; but we think it simply astound- 
ing that sensible, honorable, and well-balanced Christian men, who 
have voluntarily assumed the sacred task of fitting Christian 
young men for the gospel ministry, and who have subscribed to 
the solemn declarations which accompany the Andover Creed, 
should ever say or even suggest that our adorable Lord and 
Redeemer was a mesmerizer ! 

We appeal to the Board of Visitors. Can you, Gentlemen, as 
you remember the Christian faith and the reverent piety of the 
Founders, and in view of your own sacred obligations as the 
Supreme Guardians of Andover Seminary, allow any man, who 
believes and teaches that the Lord Jesus Christ was only a little 
more divine than other men at his period in history were, and that 
some of his astounding miracles were simply the performances of 
a mesmerizer, to remain a professor on the Andover Foundations 
any longer time than you need to write out legally and properly 
the official papers that shall dismiss him from his office ? 



IV. 

THIRD PARTICULAR COMPLAINT. 

Our third specific complaint is that Professor Smyth, in oppo- 
sition to the requirements of the Andover Creed and Statutes, 
maintains and teaches that no man has power or capacity to 
repent without knowledge of God in Christ. 

Professor Smyth defended himself against this charge at his trial 
before the Board of Visitors in December, 1886. But in their 
judgment he did not refute it, for in their decision they declared 
this charge proved, and made it one of the grounds on which 
they removed the professor from his office in Andover Seminary. 

Every professor in taking the Seminary Creed makes this 
declaration : — 

I moreover believe . . . that God's decrees perfectly consist with 
human liberty; God's universal agency with the agency of man; and 
man's dependence with his accountability ; that man has understanding 
and corporeal strength to do all that God requires of him, so that nothing 
but the sinner's aversion to holiness prevents his salvation. 

Dr. Spring on Natural and Moral Ability. 

Dr. Samuel Spring, in consultation with other Consistent Cal- 
vinists, as has already been stated, wrote the Andover Creed. 
His views upon the question of man's ability to repent and to 
obey all the commands which God has addressed to men are well 
known. In one of his publications he wrote : — 

Natural ability is the intellectual and bodily strength of man to per- 
form every action which God requires of him. ... As natural ability 
consists in having intellectual and bodily strength to perform every 
action required of man, it is evident that moral ability must consist in a 
willing mind. 1 

In view of these statements of Dr. Spring, it is impossible to 
misunderstand his meaning when he affirms in the Creed " that 
man has understanding and corporeal strength to do all that God 

1 Moral Disquisitions, by Rev. Samuel Spring, D.D.,pp. 172, 173. 

140 



Third Particular Complaint. 141 

requires of him." This declaration of the Creed means that man 
has "natural ability"; that is, by the very constitution of his 
being man has all needed power of mind and of body, real and 
full power, to repent, and to obey every command which God has 
laid upon him. That this is the meaning is also made evident by 
the next statement in this Creed — " so that nothing but the sin- 
ner's aversion to holiness prevents his salvation." No natural 
inability, therefore, — no inability of mind or of body, — prevents 
the sinner from conforming to all the requirements of the gospel ; 
and in conforming to them he ensures his salvation in Christ. 
If he does not repent, it is simply because he will not. His un- 
willingness, however, is not real inability ; it is his sin. He is 
responsible for it, and to distinguish it from natural or real 
inability it is called moral inability. The Seminary Creed says : 
' k that being morally incapable of recovering the image of his 
Creator, which was lost in Adam, every man is justly exposed to 
eternal damnation ; so that except a man be born again, he can- 
not see the kingdom of God." Man needs for his salvation no 
new capacity or faculty, no new mental or bodily power. In 
regeneration his aversion to holiness is taken away, but no new 
natural capacity or power is bestowed upon him. Every man is 
of himself abundantly able to do all that God requires of him. 
Such is the doctrine of the Creed ; and every Andover professor 
once in every five years solemnly promises to ' ' maintain and 
inculcate," so far as may appertain to his office, this doctrine, as 
well as every other doctrine expressed in the Seminary Creed. 

The Andover Progressives on Man's Ability. 
But what is the doctrine which the progressive professors are 
now actually maintaining and inculcating respecting man's ability 
to do what God requires of him? Samples of their belief and 
teaching in this particular are presented in the following statements 
quoted from " Progressive Orthodoxy " : — 

It might be enough to suggest, at this point, that the power and incli- 
nation to repent are not found except when God is revealed in Christ ; 
that only because Christ has brought God to men in a new light are 
they stirred to penitence. 1 

So we have become accustomed to the thought that Christ has an or- 
ganic relation to the race. He is an individual, but an individual vitally 

i Prog. Orth. p. 47. 



142 Third Particular Complaint. 

related to every human being. He preferred to be called the Son of 
Man. Paul sees in Him the Head of humanity, the second Adam. . . . 

Humanity may thus be thought of as offering something to God of 
eminent value. When Christ suffers, the race suffers. When Christ is 
sorrowful, the race is sorrowful. Christ realizes what humanity could 
not realize for itself. The race may be conceived as approaching God, 
and signifying its penitence by pointing to Christ, and by giving ex- 
pression in Him to repentance which no words could utter. Thus we 
can regard Him as our substitute, not because He stands apart, not be- 
cause He is one and the race another, but because He is so intimately 
identified with us and because in essential respects the life of every 
one is, or may be, locked in with his. . . . Here is the truth of 
McLeod Campbell's view of atonement. The entire race repents or is 
capable of repenting through Christ. It renders in Him a complete 
repentance. He is the Amen of humanity to the righteousness of God's 
love, to the ill desert of sin, to the justice of God's judgments. . . . 

In union with Christ, who brings spiritual truth and power to man, 
repentance is radical. Man left to himself cannot have a repentance 
which sets him free from sin and death. But in Christ he is moved to 
repentance which is revolutionary ; in Christ he can express repentance, 
for in union with Christ he adopts the feeling of Christ concerning sin 
against the God of love. If man unaided could become truly repent- 
ant, he would become holy, and would be the child of God. This is 
admitted by Jonathan Edwards. But it is only in Christ that he has 
such knowledge of God and of himself as is necessary to a repentance 
which is revolutionary. It is not true, we admit and insist, that re- 
pentance without Christ is availing for redemption, for man of himself 
cannot repent; . . . [Italics ours] Christ's sacrifice avails with God 
because it is adopted to bring man to repentance. ... He is one, in 
with the race, who has the power of bringing it into sympathy with his 
own feeling toward God and toward sin, and so God looks on the race 
as having this power in Christ — a power which, when realized, melts 
away the iron fetters of what we call necessity and fate. . . . 

The race is reconstituted in Christ, and is other in the sight of God, 
because different in fact, because containing powers for repentance and 
holiness which, without Christ, it would be hopelessly destitute of. 1 

God does not become propitious because man repents and amends, for 
that is beyond man's power. He becomes propitious because Christ, 
laying down his life, makes the race to its worst individual capable of 
repenting, obeying, trusting. 2 

Now our complaint is that these declarations of " Progressive 
Orthodoxy " upon the subject of man's ability to obey God are 
in sharp antagonism to the declarations of the Seminary Creed. 

1 Prog. Orth. pp. 5^56. 2 Ibid. p. 58. 



Third Particular Complaint. 143 

The Defendant in Conflict with the Creed. 

1. The doctrine of the Creed is, that man of himself has real 
and full power to repent, and "to do all that God requires of 
him." The doctrine of the "new theology" is, that "man of 
himself cannot repent " (p. 55). The contradiction between the 
two theologies at this point is positive and uncompromising. It 
is idle for a new-departure professor, who has subscribed to the 
Creed and promised to maintain and inculcate all its doctrines, 
to attempt to vindicate himself against this charge of breaking 
his promise, by replying, as the defendant does, that in affirming 
man's inability to repent, he had reference simply to his " moral 
inability," or to " the moral helplessness of mankind apart from 
Christ." The defendant nowhere in "Progressive Orthodoxy" 
recognizes the vital distinction between natural inability and 
moral inability. Besides, it is inconceivable that had he intended 
to affirm simply man's "moral inability " to repent, he should 
not have used the phrase " moral inability." But he did not use 
it. On the contrary he declares in the most positive terms that 
"man of himself cannot repent"; that the human race without 
Christ " would be hopelessly destitute " "of powers for repentance 
and holiness " ; that ' ' the power and inclination to repent are not 
found, except when God is revealed in Christ"; and that to 
repent "is beyond man's power." If it is possible to affirm 
in human language that man of himself has no power to obey 
God's command to repent, "Progressive Orthodoxy" has made 
that affirmation. But the Andover Creed declares that man of 
himself has power to obey that divine command, and "to do all 
that God requires of him," and thus teaches that God is not 
guilty of commanding men to do what they have no power to 
do, and then threatening to inflict upon them everlasting punish- 
ment for not doing it. 

The Sinner under No Obligation to Repent. 

2. The Creed affirms "that nothing but the sinner's aversion 
to holiness prevents his salvation." "Progressive Orthodoxy" 
contradicts this statement by affirming that something other than 
the sinner's aversion to holiness — namely, his absolute inability 
to repent — prevents his salvation. This teaching relieves the 
sinner from all obligation to repent, and thus antagonizes both 



144 Third Particular Complaint. 

the Andover Creed and the declarations of Christ and the 
apostles. 

Impenitence Not a Sin. 

3. The affirmation of the Creed is that man has real and 
ample power to repent. Consequently, if he does not repent, 
his impenitence is his sin, and it is not safe for him to continue 
impenitent one moment, for in so doing he incurs augmented 
guilt before God. The affirmation of "Progressive Orthodoxy" 
is that man of himself is utterly powerless to repent. Conse- 
quently his impenitence is not his sin, and he incurs no guilt 
in living on impenitent and dying impenitent, for as he has no 
power to repent he cannot be blamed for not repenting. Andover 
Seminary was not founded to teach such a doctrine, but exactly 
the opposite doctrine. Yet this doctrine, that man is not 
responsible for his impenitence, is now taught on the Andover 
Foundations. 

Personal Repentance Not a Just Condition of Salvation. 

4. According to the Seminary Creed, as man has ample power 
to repent, God has justly made repentance one of " the personal 
requisites in the gospel scheme of salvation," or one of the con- 
ditions upon the fulfilment of which by any sinner God can 
graciously and righteously, on the ground of Christ's atonement 
for the sins of all men, grant to such penitent sinner full 
forgiveness and the life everlasting. But, according to " Pro- 
gressive Orthodoxy," as man has no power of any kind to repent, 
God cannot justly make repentance a condition of the sinner's 
salvation ; or, if He does make it a condition, justice requires that 
He furnish the power to repent. In this case, however, the 
furnishing of the power to repent is not of grace, but of debt. 
Such a gospel is not the gospel of the Andover Creed, nor the 
gospel of Christ and the apostles ; nor can it be preached as 
Christ preached his own gospel, and as his apostles preached it. 
It would be ridiculously absurd for a preacher glowing with zeal 
and pathos to beseech his hearers to repent of their sins, when 
all the while he and they alike know perfectly well that they have 
no power whatever to do so ; and equally absurd would it be to 
urge them by every conceivable argument to instant repentance, 



Tliird Particular Complaint. 145 

and at the same time remind them that' while they are in them- 
selves utterly destitute of power to repent, yet they can, in some 
mysterious way, repent in the repentance of another, or by means 
of some mysterious power furnished them through their mysteri- 
ous and vital union with Christ. Such a gospel can never be 
honestly preached by a minister of common sense to common- 
sense people. Such a gospel, it is believed, never has been 
preached or accepted, save by a few visionary men who may 
be properly designated as pantheistic Universalists ; for the 
doctrine that the entire race repents in Christ is outright Uni- 
versalism. 

Repentance in Union with Christ. 

5. The Statute of Andover Seminary which embodies its Creed 
requires every professor to "maintain and inculcate" the doc- 
trine, that man of himself has natural and complete ability to 
repent of his sins, and to do all things which God requires 
of him. But the advocates of " Progressive Orthodoxy," who 
are now holding chairs in Andovor Seminary, are maintaining 
and inculcating the doctrine, that while man of himself has no 
natural ability, no moral ability, no ability of any kind, to repent 
of his sins, or to do anything which God in the gospel of his Son 
requires him to do, yet, "in Christ," "in union with Christ," 
" in with Christ," in the knowledge of himself, of truth, and 
of God that comes to him by being "in Christ," man receives 
real and full power to repent of his sins, and to do all which God 
requires of him. The mutual antagonism of these two doctrines 
is absolute and uncompromising. Such samples of progressive 
teaching as the following should be kept in mind : — 

In union with Christ, who brings spiritual truth and power to man, 
repentance is radical. Man left to himself cannot have a repentance 
which sets him free from sin and death. But in Christ he is moved 
to repentance which is revolutionary; in Christ he can express repent- 
ance, for in union with Christ he adopts the feeling- of Christ concerning 
sin against the God of love. . . . But it is only in Christ that he has 
such knowledge of God and of himself as is necessary to a repentance 
which is revolutionary. ... He [Christ] is one, in with the race, who 
has the power of bringing it into sympathy with his own feeling toward 
God and toward sin. 1 [The italics are ours.] 

1 Prog. Orth. pp. 55, 56. 



146 Third Particular Complaint. 

The Central and Vital Principle in "Progressive Orthodoxy." 

If such statements as these are true, it is of supreme moment 
to every human being to know precisely what ' ' Progressive 
Orthodoxy" means when it speaks of "man," that is, of every 
member of the human race, as being " in Christ " " in union with 
Christ ," and of Christ as being " in ivith the race." But to raise 
this question is to ask, What is the. theory which is accepted 
and advocated by the progressive professors in Andover Seminary 
respecting the relation of the human race, and of every member 
of it, to Christ, and to God in Christ. The following statements 
of the advocates of this theory will set it forth with sufficient 
clearness for our present purpose : — 

For the most part, a single line of inquiry has been followed, under 
the guidance of a central and vital principle of Christianity, namely, the 
reality of Christ's personal relation to the human race as a whole and 
to every member of it, — the principle of the universality of Christianity. 

This principle has been rapidly gaining of late in its power over 
men's thoughts and lives. It is involved in the church doctrine of the 
constitution of Christ's person. . . . We have sought to apply this 
principle to the solution of questions which are now more than ever 
before engaging the attention of serious and devout minds. We have 
endeavored to follow its guidance faithfully and loyally, and witherso- 
ever it might lead. We have trusted it wholly and practically. ... If 
we have anywhere overestimated or underestimated the validity and 
value of our guiding principle, we hope that this will be pointed out. 
. . . On the other hand, if we have been true to a great and cardinal 
doctrine of our holy religion, and have developed its necessary implica- 
tions and consequences, we ask that any further discussion of these 
conclusions should recognize their connection with the principle from which 
they are derived, and their legitimacy, unless this principle is itself to be 
abandoned. 1 

Pantheism. 

It should be noticed that ' ' the principle " referred to in this 
extract is represented as " a central and vital principle of Chris- 
tianity," as " involved in the church doctrine of the constitution 
of Christ's person," and finally as " a great and cardinal doctrine 
of our holy religion." Our view of these representations is that 
they are sheer dogmatism and absolutely false. " The principle" 
thus dogmatically affirmed and glorified is, as will be shown, 
simply the old speculation or theory that the human race as a 

1 Prog. Orth. Introduction, pp. 3, 4. 



Third Particular Complaint. 147 

whole, and every member of it, are organically and vitally united 
to Christ, and that this is only a part of the larger theory of the 
organic and vital union and identity of the entire world with God. 
This larger theory, beyond question, is not of Christian but of 
heathen origin. It is ancient Pantheism. Indeed, it is not only 
an amazing assumption, but also a severe reflection upon Chris- 
tianity, to represent that this old pagan Pantheism in itself, or 
in any application of it, is " a great and cardinal doctrine of our 
holy religion " ; that " it is involved in the church doctrine of the 
constitution of Christ's person " ; and that it is "a central and 
vital principle of Christianity." The truth is that Pantheism 
had its origin, not in Christianity nor in the Holy Scriptures, but 
in the ancient philosophies of pagan Greece and India ; and 
nothing could be more opposed to the Andover Confession of 
Faith than this old pagan speculation respecting the identity of 
God and the world, or any use of it in the way of explaining the 
relation of Christ to the human race. It is preposterous for the 
Andover progressives to speak deprecatingly, as they do, about 
" abandoning this principle," for it was never adopted by the 
Christian Church at large ; and as to Andover Seminary, that was 
founded for the very purpose of opposing, among other false and 
hurtful errors prevailing at that time, this same "principle" of 
pagan Pantheism, as then set forth in its application to Christianity 
by John Murray, " the father of Universalism in America." 

This theory of God's relation to the world, which is confessedly 
the fundamental and guiding principle in " Progressive Ortho- 
doxy," is further set forth in the following language : — 

We add a single remark upon the general philosophical conception of 
God and his relation to the universe which underlies these essays. It is 
a modification of a prevailing Latin conception of the divine transcend- 
ence by a clearer and fuller appreciation (in accordance with the highest 
thought of the Greek fathers) of the divine immanence. Such a doctrine 
of God, we believe, is more and more approving itself in the best phi- 
losophy of our time, and the fact of the Incarnation commends it to the 
acceptance of the Christian theologian. 1 

The Greek and Latin Conceptions of God. 
Attention is called to the frank confession made in this extract, 
that it is the Latin, and not the Greek, conception of God that is 

iProg. Orth. Introduction, p. 16. 



148 TJdrd Particular Complaint. 

modified in u Progressive Orthodoxy." The old Greek conception 
of God remains intact in the so-called u new theology." Speaking 
briefly and generally we may say that the Latin conception repre- 
sents God as other than the universe He has created, and while 
it emphasizes his personality, transcendence, and sovereignty, it 
also represents Him as filling the created universe with his preserv- 
ing, controlling, and gracious presence. It emphasizes the divine 
omnipresence in the world, no less than the divine transcendence. 
On the other hand, the Greek conception of God fails to distin- 
guish sharply between God and the created universe or the world. 
It emphasizes the divine immanence, not as identical with the 
divine omnipresence, but as the organic and vital union of God 
with the world. The Latin conception of God is scriptural. It 
is Christian theism. The Greek conception is unscriptural, and 
either is, or tends to, pure Pantheism. The former has its origin 
in divine Revelation ; the latter has its origin in Paganism. The 
Latin conception is the prevailing one in orthodox, evangelistic 
churches, and wherever accepted it is a revealed truth of marvel- 
ous vitality and power, energizing men for the service of right- 
eousness and of God, and especially for irrepressible missionary 
and evangelistic endeavors. The Greek conception is found in 
the liberal, so called, or unevangelical, churches. The religious 
faith that springs from this conception is sometimes indifferent, 
but oftener intensely hostile to all evangelistic labors. In com- 
petition with the energizing, evangelical conception of God, it 
will occasionally put forth a few languid efforts in the line of 
education and philanthropy, always, however, vigorously exclud- 
ing all evangelistic labor and influence ; but left to itself it 
quickly ceases to do anything for God or man, and soon dies 
from mere inanition. This liberal faith can seldom be moved by 
any impulsion to take the lead in founding permanent Christian 
institutions for the good of men ; it is more likely to adopt the 
principles of the highwayman, and, by methods amounting to 
fraud and robbery, seize such educational, ecclesiastical, and other 
institutions as it needs for its own support and propagation. 

The Pantheistic Idea Regnant in "Progressive Orthodoxy." 

Now it is this Greek, pantheistic conception of God that the 
defendant and his progressive associates are enamored with. 



Tliird Particular Complaint, 149 

Such is the regnant and all-pervading principle in their ' ' new- 
theology." The progressive professors at Andover, speaking of 
this principle, frankly say : — 

We have endeavored to follow its guidance faithfully and loyally, 
and whithersoever it might lead. We have trusted it wholly and 
practically. 1 

But this Greek, pantheistic notion of the vital union and real 
identity of God and the world, if introduced into the evangelical, 
Christian system of faith, will poison and corrupt every scriptu- 
ral doctrine which it touches. And surely no notion coming from 
pagan philosophy, or from any source, can be more antagonistic 
than Pantheism to the theology of the Andover Creed and to all 
evangelical faith. Even the Incarnate Son of God, according to 
this pantheistic philosophy, becomes, as has already been shown, 
simply the archetype of all human beings, and thus every man 
comes to be regarded as truly a God-man as is Christ himself. 

Another statement of this pantheistic theory of Christ's rela- 
tion to the world, and to the human race as a part of the world, 
which is now held and taught in Andover Seminary is found in 
these words : — 

What is commonly, though in too limited a way, called his [Christ's] 
mediatorial kingdom will come to an end when the creation, in the Per- 
son of its redemptive Head and Lord, will bow before the throne, and 
God will be all in all. That cycle of history introduced by Adam's 
transgression, or earlier in the sin of angelic spirits, will come to a 
close, and with it that form of dominion determined by the existence of 
unvanquished rebellion. 2 

According to this statement, " the creation," or the entire uni- 
verse which is commonly spoken of as having been created, is 
not to be conceived of as other than ' ' the Person of its redemp- 
tive Head and Lord," but as united to and included in his Person, 
and as constituting an essential part of his being, so that when 
He bows before the throne the entire universe bows in Him, " and 
God will be all in all." The conception appears to be that of 
emanation. As under necessary law a ray emanates from the sun, 
imparts its light and heat, and then is reabsorbed into its source, 
so the universe of dependent worlds, beings, and things is only 

i Prog. Orth. pp. 3, 4. 2 Ibid. p. 24. 



150 Third Particular Complaint. 

a necessary emanation or evolution from the being of God, 
and, having accomplished under necessary law its historic cycle 
of divine manifestations and changes, will be reabsorbed into 
Deity. This is Pantheism ; and no theory of God's relation to 
the universe can more violently antagonize, than does this, the 
scriptural conception of that relation as set forth in the Andover 
Creed where it affirms, that " God is a Spirit, infinite, eternal, and 
unchangeable in his being " and " that God created man." 

Universalism. 

According to the pantheistic theory now taught at Andover, 
God in Christ is changeable. Changes in the universe and in the 
human race are simply so many changes in Christ. When Christ 
bows before the throne the universe in Him bows also. When 
Christ feels pain in view of human sin, every man, as vitally 
united to Christ and so a constituent part of his being, really, 
though not consciously, feels that same pain. When Christ sor- 
rows for the sins of the human race, confesses them, and so re- 
pents of them, every member of the human race, though he may 
have no knowledge or consciousness of it, repents in that perfect 
repentance of Christ because he is "so identified" with Him. 
This is not simply Pantheism, but also Universalism ; for if every 
man offers to God a perfect repentance in Christ, every man not 
merely will be but is saved. 

Christ the Life of Every Man and of the Universe. 

Again, the pantheistic nature of Christ's relation to the world, 
including the human race, as that relation is depicted by "Pro- 
gressive Orthodoxy," is made evident by such language as the 
following : — 

The whole truth, then, is that Christ is the revealing or manifesting 
principle ; or, more exactly, that through the Logos, the Word, the Sec- 
ond Person of the Trinity, that which is absolute fulness and truth 
in God is communicated into finite existences ; . . . The created universe 
and all rational beings are through Christ and in Christ. Therefore He 
mediates or reveals God to any part of His universe according to the 
condition or need which may exist in that part. . . . Christ cannot be 
indifferent to the least of His creatures in its pain and wickedness, for 
His universe is not attached to Him externally, but vitally. He is not a 
governor set over it, but is its life everywhere. He feels its every move- 



TJiird Particular Complaint. 151 

ment, most of all its spiritual life and feebleness or disease, and appears 
in His glorious power even at the remotest point. 1 [Italics ours.] 

But if the universe is attached to Christ, not externally, but 
vitally, and if He is " not a governor set over it, but is its life 
everywhere and feels its every movement," especially its spiritual 
life, feebleness, or disease, then Christ and the universe are one 
person and Christ is responsible for the life of that person, for 
his character, for his every movement, even for his guilt, if he 
sins. On the other hand, as the Supreme Governor of the uni- 
verse, as the Lord of lords and the King of kings, He is not re- 
sponsible for all the movements, sins, and sufferings of free and 
accountable beings in the universe. But if he is not Lord of all, 
if he and the universe are one person, and he allows pain, sick- 
ness, or wickedness in any part of his own being, it must be 
because he is either not almighty or not all-good, and in either 
case he is not God. Moreover, if Christ's sympathy for men in 
their woes and wickedness is not the sympathy of one being for 
other beings, but of one being for himself, why are not all the 
woes and wickedness of men Christ's own woes and wicked- 
ness? And if Christ and the entire human race, by their organic 
and vital union, constitute one person, so that He can repent of 
all their sins, while they of themselves cannot repent of them, 
why ought He not to repent of them, and why is He not guilty to 
an inconceivable degree of the sin of impenitence if He does not 
repent of them ? But if He offers a repentance which He ought to 
offer, which is due to himself and to all men as included in him- 
self, to whom He is attached not " externally but vitally," even 
as the head is attached to the members of its own body, then the 
salvation of all men through the repentance of Christ their Head 
is simply an act of justice, and not at all of grace on Christ's 
part. But the Creed, which every Andover professor accepts and 
promises to maintain, declares that "our salvation is wholly of 
grace." 

This strange doctrine of repentance is founded upon the specu- 
lative and pantheistic notion that Christ, in his relation to the 
universe, "is its life everywhere." Of course, then, He is the 
life of every man, and the human race is not to be thought of as 
existing apart from, or as other than, the immanent Christ, but as 

!Prog. Orth. pp. 43, 44. 



152 Tliird Particular Complaint. 

constituting with Him, who is its life, one being, feeling what He 
feels, doing what He does. Then follows naturally the teaching 
that men cannot repent apart from Christ, or of themselves, but 
can repent in Christ, who is their life, and who always feels pain 
and sorrow in view of sin. But as He is the life of all men He 
feels pain and sorrow in all men in view of their sins, and thus 
all men, through then vital union with Christ, offer to God a 
perfect and acceptable repentance. Thus we find again that 
"Progressive Orthodoxy" is thoroughgoing Universalism. And 
Universalism is one of the errors specified in the Creed which 
every Andover professor has religiously promised to oppose. 

The Vital Union of the Race with Christ Unproved. 

Now " Progressive Orthodoxy " offers no evidence whatever in 
support of this theory of the organic and vital union of all men 
with Christ. It everywhere assumes, and often dogmatically 
affirms, the reality of such a union, apparently seeking by this fre- 
quent assertion and implication of such a reality to make the 
minds of its readers familiar with the notion. At length it says, 
with a sigh of relief, as if believing that at last the reader's 
familiarity with the doctrine must have convinced him of its truth : 

So we have become accustomed to the thought that Christ has an 
organic relation to the race. He is an individual, but an individual 
vitally related to every human being. He preferred to be called the 
Son of man. Paul sees in Him the Head of humanity, the second Adam. 
... He was not merely the ideal man, but the universal man. . . . 

Humanity may thus be thought of as offering something to God of 
eminent value. When Christ suffers the race suffers. When Christ is 
sorrowful the race is sorrowful. Christ realizes what humanity could 
not realize for itself. The race may be conceived as approaching God 
and signifying its penitence by pointing to Christ, and by giving ex- 
pression in Him to repentance which no words could utter. Thus we 
can regard Him as our substitute, not because He stands apart, not 
because He is one and the race another, but because He is so intimately 
identified with us, and because in essential respects the life of every one 
is, or may be, locked in with his. The representative power which 
belongs to man in his various relations comes to its perfect realization 
in Christ. In the family, in government, in business, in society, repre- 
sentative or substitutionary relations are the rule, not the exception. 
Much more has Christ the power perfectly to represent us or to be sub- 
stituted for us, because there is no point of our real life where He is not 



Third Particular Complaint. 153 

in contact with us. Here is the truth of McLeod Campbell's view of 
atonement. The entire race repents, or is capable of repenting, through 
Christ. It renders in Him a complete repentance. He is the Amen of 
humanity to the righteousness of God's love, to the ill desert of sin, to 
the justice of God's judgments. 1 

The Nature of Man's Union with Christ. 

In these statements the pantheistic philosophy or theory of 
" Progressive Orthodoxy" respecting the relation of Christ to the 
human race is set forth with some inconsistencies, yet with consid- 
erable explicitness. Several of the representations made in these 
quotations should receive special attention. 

The Union Vital. 

First, there is here a positive declaration that while Christ is 
" an individual " He is yet " an individual vitally related to every 
human being." But what is the meaning of the word "vitally" 
as here used ? Its import is distinctly set forth in the statement 
already noticed, that Christ "is not a governor set over" his 
universe, " but is its life everywhere." Of course, then, He is the 
life of every man. God in Christ is conceived of in " Progress- 
ive Orthodoxy " as a vast individual Existence coming into mani- 
fested life in all living beings and things : in the trees and grass, 
in the ox and the worm, in all angels, in all insects, and in all 
men. Christ is not simply omnipresent. "His universe is not 
attached to him externally, but vitally." He " is its life every- 
where." "He was not merely the ideal man, but the universal 
man." His life and the life of every man are identical. The Life 
in the universe is one, is a unit, is Christ. Therefore his person 
includes in itself all men. Elsewhere He is declared to be " the 
universal Person " (p. 63) . Can such pantheistic Universalism be 
lawfully and righteously taught on the Andover Foundations ? 

The Race the Body of Christ. 
Secondly, according to " Progressive Orthodoxy" Christ is not 
simply the Head of his Church considered as including all chosen 
out of the world, but is "the Head of humanity. He is the 
second Adam." The entire human race, then, is the body of 
Christ, the one true Church of God. Every human being is a 

1 Prog. Orth. pp. 52-54. 



154 Third Particular Complaint. 

member of Christ's body. All men alike, the wicked and the 
righteous, Judas and John, Pilate and Peter, heathen and Chris- 
tians, the worst criminals and the holiest saints who have ever 
lived or ever will live on earth, constitute the one body of Christ, 
the true Christian Church. Was Andover Seminary founded to 
teach such a theology as this? 

What Christ Does the Race Does. 

Thirdly, " Progressive Orthodoxy" consistently maintains that 
what the Head does the whole body does. " When Christ suffers 
the race suffers. When Christ sorrows the race sorrows." Of 
course, then, when Christ repents the race repents. Christ feels 
the pain of regret and grief in view of human sins. If that pain 
can be called repentance, then Christ repents. And as all men 
constitute the body of Christ, making with Him one person, they 
all repent in his repentance, and " the race" may signify "its 
penitence by pointing to Christ and by giving expression in Him 
to repentance which no words could utter." Man's repentance, 
so called, is imperfect, absolutely ineffective and worthless. But 
Christ's repentance is perfect, and as in his repentance all men 
repent, they all offer a repentance that is perfect, revolutionary, 
recuperative, regenerative, redemptive, and saving. Can such a 
doctrine as this be held and taught in Andover Seminary by an 
honest man who has solemnly promised to oppose Universalism ? 

The Race Not Other than Christ. 

Fourthly, "Progressive Orthodoxy" holds that Christ is our 
substitute, not in the sense of standing in our place and doing 
and suffering in our stead, but in the sense of being " inti- 
mately identified with us." He is a substitute for, and a repre- 
sentative of, the race, "not because He is one and the race an- 
other," but because the life of the race and of every member of 
it is his life, so that what He does the race does, and what He 
suffers the race suffers. On this theory no action or suffering of 
Christ in the place of the sinner as being other than himself is 
possible. The new-departure teaching is that man of himself 
does not and can not repent ; but when Christ repents He repre- 
sents the race, not as being other than himself, in whose stead He 
can act, but as being a constituent part of his own person, as 



Tliird Particular Complaint. 155 

being the body of which He is the Head, and as containing his 
very life. But is such a repentance one of the "personal requi- 
sites " to, or conditions of, salvation, which must be fulfilled per- 
sonally by the sinner, and not by another, according to the An- 
dover Creed? To ask this question is to answer it. Every 
professor in this Seminary who teaches that the race repents in 
Christ, and may signify its penitence by pointing to Christ's re- 
pentance as its own perfect repentance, is teaching a doctrine 
which he has promised as under oath not to teach but to oppose. 

The Vital Question. 

We are prepared now to answer the vital question already 
raised : What does ' ' Progressive Orthodoxy " mean by the 
phrases, " in Christ," " in union with Christ," " Christ in us," 
"the indwelling Christ," "the divine immanence"? The pro- 
gressive professors tell us that " man of himself cannot repent," 
but " in Christ," " in union with Christ," because " Christ is in 
with the race," "immanent" in every human being, man can 
repent ; and his repentance in this case is not imperfect, ineffect- 
ive, unreal, and worthless, but complete, radical, revolutionary, 
and recuperative to the utmost degree. But if this be true, 
nothing can exceed the urgency of the question, What is this 
union of man — of every man, of the entire human race — with 
Christ? 

1. This union is not oneness with Christ in character and con- 
duct. Some members of the human race are Christlike, but all 
of them are not. Even the Andover progressives cannot claim that 
all men bear the image of the Lord Jesus, and manifest his mind 
and spirit ; but they do claim that all men are " in Christ," and 
that Christ is in every man. The union to which they refer, 
therefore, cannot possibly be a oneness of all human beings with 
Christ in purity and righteousness, in spirit and conduct. 

2. This alleged union of all mankind with Christ is not a con- 
nection with Him attained through the new birth. Indeed it is 
not attained at all. The theory is that it is coexistent with the 
being of man. The moment man begins to be, he is "mi Christ" 
and Christ is in him. Moreover, the new birth of which the gos- 
pel speaks, and without which no man can enter the Kingdom of 
God, while it does bring those who experience it into the closest 



156 Third Particular Complaint. 

and dearest relation to the Lord Jesus, is not experienced by all 
men, and therefore cannot be that union of the entire human 
race with Christ — or even the occasion of that union — which 
is set forth by "Progressive Orthodoxy" as "the central and 
vital principle of Christianity." The apostle Paul says: "There- 
fore if any man be in Christ, he is a new creature." " Progress- 
ive Orthodoxy" represents that all men are " in Christ," but as 
it does not and can not add that every man is a " new creature," 
it evidently does not use the phrases " in Christ" and " Christ in 
us " in the same sense in which Paul used them. It must, then, 
use them in an unscriptural sense, whatever that sense may be. 

3. Nor does this union of all men with Christ result from their 
repenting of sin and believing on Christ, for this simple reason, 
among others, that it precedes repentance and faith. According 
to " Progressive Orthodoxy," man must be " in Christ" in order 
that he may be able to repent. Of himself he cannot repent, 
but "m Christ" he can and does repent. This union of the 
race with Christ, whatever it is, does not result from repentance 
and faith, but repentance and faith result from this union. 
According to the Scriptures there is a blessed union of Christ 
with his disciples in which He dwells in them through their abiding 
love to Him, sympathy with Him, and faith in Him. But in this 
case, the love, sympathy, and faith precede the indwelling of 
Christ in his disciples and are the occasion of it : whereas the 
indwelling of Christ in all men, of which "Progressive Ortho- 
doxy" speaks, precedes personal love, sympathy, and faith, and 
does not ensure them. Paul's prayer for the saints at Ephesus was, 
" that Christ may dwell in your hearts by faith." In this case 
Christian faith is represented as preceding the divine indwelling 
and as the condition of it. But the indwelling of Christ in all 
men, which "Progressive Orthodoxy" sets forth as a cardinal 
Christian doctrine, is represented as preceding personal faith 
in Christ, without in all cases, if in any case, making that faith 
actual. Such teaching is not simply unscriptural, but anti-scrip- 
tural ; and, if anti-scriptural, it is also absolutely antagonistic to 
the Seminary Creed. 

4. These phrases, " Christ in us," " Christ in with the race," 
"Christ immanent in all men," do not signify simply the omni- 
presence of Christ in the human family. The common belief 



TJiird Particular Complaint. 157 

of our churches has been that He who became flesh was the 
Creator; that " without Him was not any thing made that was 
made " ; and that He is everywhere present in his creation and 
beyond it, yet is himself other than the things and beings He 
has made. Some theologians have designated this universal 
divine presence in creation as the divine immanence. But evi- 
dently " Progressive Orthodoxy" does not regard the divine im- 
manence as identical with the divine omnipresence. It never 
uses the one phrase as equivalent to the other. 

Positive Answer to the Vital Question. 

5. Our main question, therefore, is still pressing for an answer : 
What is this immanence of Christ in the human race, this union 
of all men with the Lord Jesus, which is represented to us as a 
transcendent verity in Christianity, and as a fundamental doctrine 
in ' ' Progressive Orthodoxy " ? 

This union is defined only by the frequent use of two words. 
It is said to be " organic" and "vital." It is the organic and 
vital union of all human beings with the Lord Jesus. The Son 
of God is represented as having "an organic relation to the race," 
like that of Adam to his posterity, and like that between the 
head and members of the human body. It is such a solidarity of 
the human race in Christ that He and the race constitute, in some 
sense, one being, one person ; so that what Christ does all men 
do : what Christ suffers all men suffer. 

This union of every man with Christ is also declared to be 
vital as well as organic. What is meant by this, we repeat, is 
disclosed in the statement that Christ's 

universe is not attached to Him externally but vitally. He is not a 
governor set over it, but is its life everywhere. 1 

Of course, then, He is the life of every man. The Son of God is 
so identified with all men that his life and their life are one and 
the same life. This is essentially Pantheism. Thus this vaunted 
union of Christ and the human race turns out to be a pantheistic 
union, the identity of Christ and the human race, the solidarity 
of all men in Christ, constituting Him and them one being, so 
that what the Head does the members do. 

1 Prog. Orth. p. 44. 



158 Third Particular Complaint. 

When Christ suffers the race suffers. When Christ is sorrowful the 
race is sorrowful. . . . The race may be conceived as approaching God, 
and signifying its penitence by pointing to Christ, and by giving expres- 
sion in Him to repentance which no words could utter. 1 

Thus when Christ repents the race repents. 

According to this pantheistic conception, all men, irrespective 
of their moral character, are one with Christ. It is a oneness in 
being, not in holiness. Most Christian people, if we are not mis- 
taken, will be shocked at the idea that all members of the human 
race alike, the dead and the living, all the heathen and all Chris- 
tians, the wicked and the righteous, the regenerate and the unre- 
generate, the penitent and the impenitent, are in Christ, vitally 
united to Him and included in his person. The conception seems 
blasphemous. It represents our adorable Lord as a horrible mon- 
strosity. It is essentially a heathen notion, and the entertainment 
of it by a professor in a Christian Seminary dishonors his scholar- 
ship, if it does not impugn both his piety and his common sense. 
Yet such is the theory of the constitution of Christ's person and 
of his relation to the human race, now accepted and taught by 
professors in Andover Seminary. 

Inconsistencies of the Andover Progressives. 

True, they are not always consistent with themselves. Their 
writings abound in self-contradictions. For instance, they affirm 
that " man of himself cannot repent," yet talk of man's being 
" stirred to penitence," u moved to repentance," and declare that 
" under appropriate influences, he is capable of repenting," that is, 
can repent if he will. Thus they affirm and deny the same thing. 
Yet in spite of all their inconsistencies and absolute self-contra- 
dictions, the dominating theory of the progressive professors is 
that man cannot repent except through his organic and vital, that 
is, his pantheistic, union with Christ. Indeed, they themselves 
affirm that 6 ' Christ's personal relation to the human race as a 
whole and to every member of it " is " a central and vital prin- 
ciple of Christianity," and that they have committed themselves 
wholly to the guidance of that principle. Their inconsistencies 
are a contradiction of their fundamental principle. 

!Prog. Orth. p. 53. 



Third Particular Complaint. 159 

Rellyanism. 

In the next place, we propose to show that this central prin- 
ciple of "Progressive Orthodoxy," namely, the organic and vital 
union of the entire human race with Christ, is identically the cen- 
tral principle of that form of Universalism which the Founders 
of Andover Seminary had chiefly in mind when they put into 
their Statutes the requirement that every professor in their Sem- 
inary, to the end of time, should solemnly promise to oppose 
Universalism. In 1807, when Andover Seminary was founded, 
the only form of Universalism which had attracted much popular 
attention in New England was termed Rellyanism, it having been 
preached by one James Relly in London, England. It was first 
preached in this country by John Murray, who is called " the 
Father of Universalism in America." He was a loyal disciple of 
James Relly. 

James Relly. 

This progressive divine began to preach his new gospel in 
London near the middle of the last century. He was an un- 
learned man, yet he appears to have fascinated a certain class of 
people for a brief time by his rough and ready eloquence. The 
crowds rushed to hear him. He was the sensation of the day in 
London. He claimed to be the only man of advanced thought in 
his time, the only progressive theologian in that age of the world, 
and the first man who had preached the true gospel since the 
days of Christ and the apostles. The Wesleys and other evan- 
gelical preachers in England at that time opposed him strenuously, 
believing that the doctrines he proclaimed were hazardous to the 
souls of men. 

John Murray. 

Relly's most famous disciple, John Murray, came to this coun- 
try in 1770. Both of these men at one time claimed to have been 
converted under the preaching of George Whitefield, but both 
abandoned the faith of that great preacher. Upon reaching this 
country, Murray began at once to preach the new gospel which he 
had learned from James Relly. Like his teacher he had received 
no training in the schools, but was of ready speech, and his style 
of preaching is said to have strikingly resembled that of his 



160 Third Particular Complaint. 

master. He preached first in New Jersey. He was an impecu- 
nious man, and for several years obtained his support from evan- 
gelical Christians, concealing the fact that he was a Universalist. 
He adroitly worked his way into pulpits in all, or nearly all, the 
evangelical denominations, doing this sometimes during the tem- 
porary absence or the sickness of the pastors. His habit was to 
make missionary tours through the country, and to preach wher- 
ever and whenever he could obtain admission to a house of 
worship. In this way he preached from Maryland to Maine, 
producing division and discord in evangelical churches wherever 
he went. He became a notorious character. Dr. Ezra Stiles, at 
a later day President of Yale College, wrote a letter which was 
afterwards published, and in which he denounced Murray and 
warned Christian people against him. Murray was well known to 
the Founders of Andover Seminary. He married his wife in 
Salem, where John Norris, one of the Founders, resided. He 
preached repeatedly in Newburyport, where Dr. Samuel Spring, 
who wrote the Andover Creed, William Bartlet, and Moses 
Brown, two other Founders, resided. Murray, after rending 
asunder the Congregational church in Gloucester, Massachusetts, 
during the last sickness of its pastor, organized there a church of 
his own faith — the first Universalist church in this country. In 
1793 he became pastor of the First Universalist Church in Boston, 
Massachusetts. He was preaching in Boston in 1807, the year 
Andover Seminary was founded. He continued to preach until 
1810, and died in 1815. 

John Murray was fond of theological debate. He had a long 
discussion with the famous theologian Dr. Samuel Hopkins while 
they were riding together on horseback. There is a record that 
he had a public debate with Dr. Jonathan Edwards the younger, 
at New Haven, Connecticut. Murray published accounts of 
many of his private theological discussions, but it is significant 
that he never gave the world any account of his public dis- 
cussion with Dr. Jonathan Edwards the younger. Edwards, 
however, published a brief refutation of Rellyanism, in which he 
apologizes for troubling his readers with ' ' remarks on such wild 
and confused mysticism — such horrid doctrine." 1 Dr. Nathanael 
Emmons also preached against the doctrines of Relly and 

1 Works of President Edwards, vol. i, p. 269. 



Third Particular Complaint. 161 

Murray. 1 Dr. Emmons was a brother-in-law of Dr. Spring, 
and was repeatedly consulted by Dr. Spring when the latter 
was writing the Andover Creed. Certain phrases in this Creed 
beyond question are aimed against Rellyanism, and were designed 
to make it impossible that that particular form of Universalism, 
or any other form, should ever be taught in Andover Seminary. 

"The New Theology" of the Last Century. 

What now is Rellyanism? Its central and dominating principle 
is the dogma of the organic and vital union of the entire human 
race with Christ. Relly dwelt continually upon the constitution 
of the Person of Christ, and upon Christ's relation to the human 
race, representing that Christ is the life of every man, and that 
thus He is in vital union with all men, and that the entire race is 
included in his person. His principal theological treatise is 
entitled " Union," as it treats of Christ's union, or oneness, with 
the human race. The full title of this work is: " Union: or, 
A Treatise of the Consanguinity and Affinity between Christ and 
His Church* By James Relly. 1 Cor. xii. 12. London, 1759." 

"The Church" in Relly's view, is the human race, or Adam 
and his posterity. Sometimes he designates mankind as wt the 
people," but more usually as " the Church. At first Adam was 
44 the Church" ; yet he is considered as including all men in his 
person. 

The Union of the Race with Christ. 

Relly's notion of the union of all men with Christ may be set 
forth in a few quotations from his writings. For instance he 
illustrates this union by that of Adam and Eve. 

As Eve Existed in Adam, so the Race Exists in Christ. 

Thus [he says] were the Twain created in one: the Woman in her 
Husband, where they had one name given them ; He called their name 
Adam. It was whilst they were in this condition, that the Lord God 
breathed into their nostrils the breath of Life ; and Man became a living 
soul. It was whilst they were in this capacity, undistinguished in person, 
that the Lord God commanded Man. . . . Yea, it was whilst the Person 
of Adam was plural, as containing the Woman in Himself, that the Lord 

1 Sermon on the General Judgment, Emmons's Works, vol. v, p. 566. Edition of 
Crocker & Brewster, Boston, 1842. 



162 Third Particular Complaint. 

God said unto them, ' be fruitful and multiply and replenish the earth and 
subdue iV . . . The twain were created in one; the woman in her Hus- 
band. Similar with this, the Church [the human race] existed in Christ; 
according as he hath chosen us in him, before the foundation of the world. 
. . . Eve when taken from Adam into a distinct consciousness of exist- 
ence, was not less related unto him, than when she was only a Eib in his 
Side ; as appears from Adam's testimony ; she is now bone of my bones, 
and flesh of my flesh. In like manner, the Church when put forth in the 
creation of Adam, into a distinct personality from her Head and Husband 
Christ, was not less united to him, than when she only existed in him; 
which she did, before the earthly Man was created, or ever the worlds 
were made. 1 

Citrist the Second Adam. 

Again, speaking of the fall of Adam, and of the race in him, 
Kelly says : — 

Hence we gather, that Adam was not deceived in His own Person ; but 
knowing what Eve had done, and seeing their ruin inevitable, He volun- 
tarily put himself into her condition, by receiving the fruit from her 
hand, and eating thereof ; such was his love unto his wife. And as they 
were not, (tho' distinct in person), without each the other in the Lord, 
her transgression extended unto him : and His Union unto her made it 
equitable, for the curse and condemnation of her folly, to fall upon 
him ; and that without the consideration of his consent, and compliance 
with Her. 

In like manner, Christ the Husband was not deceived: but his Wife, 
the Church, being deceived was in the transgression. Yet as the Union 
was such, that Christ was not without the Church, nor the Church without 
him, at any time, it was equitable for her Curse and Condemnation to fall 
upon him. . . . Moreover, the Scriptures affirm, that by the offe nee of one, 
Judgment came upon all men, unto condemnation. For all have sinned, and 
come short of the glory of God. It is evident hence, that in Adam's offence, 
all offended; which supposes such a Union between Adam and his 
Offspring ; that his sin was their sin ; and his ruin their ruin ; thus by his 
, offence, were they made sinners ; whilst They included in him were in 
Passivity, and He the active consciousness of the whole. . . . If it be 
granted, that there was such an Union between Adam and his Offspring, 
as rendered his sin theirs; why should it be thought a thing incredible, 
that the like Union, subsisting between Jesus and his Seed, renders his con- 
dition theirs? . . . This manifests such an Union to him, such an inclusion 
of the whole seed in him, as renders his condition theirs, in every state 
which he passes through ; insomuch that his righteousness, with all the 
blessings and fruits thereof, is theirs, before they have known it, believed 
it, or ever were conscious of Existence. 2 

1 Union, pp. 15-18, London edition, 1759. 2 Ibid. pp. 18-21. 



Third Particular Complaint. 163 

Christ the Vine, All Men the Branches. 

As another illustration of the nature of Christ's union with the 
human race, Relly takes and perverts our Lord's beautiful parable 
of The Vine and the Branches. Christ uses this similitude to set 
forth the relation of his own disciples only to himself. Relly uses 
it to set forth the relation of all men to Christ. Our Lord seeks, 
in this parable, to illustrate the close but voluntary relation which 
be desires his disciples to sustain to himself. He exhorts them to 
abide in him, and depicts the terrible consequences to them in 
case they should not, of their own choice and action, abide in 
him. Relly seeks by the same parable to illustrate the involun- 
tary and necessary relation which all men do actually sustain to 
Christ even in their own passivity, or irrespective of their own 
choice and action. Speaking of the vine, Relly says : — 

When the Stock, or Set, is first planted, there are no Branches thereon ; 
but nevertheless, the Husbandman, knowing its seed to be in itself, 
planteth in hope ; being well assured of its putting forth its Branches, 
and bearing fruit thereon in due season. All his skill, care and suffi- 
ciency standing ingaged for the same. 

Thus Jesus, when first planted by the Father's hand, as the first, and 
only Begotten, Chosen, and Beloved, was as the Stock or Set, whose 
Branches doth not appear. But having then his seed in himself, he was 
to put them forth in his Branches in due season; according to the 
appointment, and foreknowledge of the Great Husbandman : His Wis- 
dom, Power, Care, and All-sufficiency, standing ingaged for the same. 
As the Stem, and Branches, make one Tree, so Jesus, and the People [the 
human race] make one Body, one Man, one Christ, one Elect, one Beloved 
of the Father, one crucified, raised, and everliving. The Stock and 
Branches, making one Tree, grow in one soil : so Christ and the People, 
are jointly rooted, and grounded, in the Father's Love: And hast loved 
them, as thou hast loved me. Heirs of God and Joint-Heirs with Christ: 
Standing with Him, in the same relation to the Divine Majesty. . . . The 
Root and Branches making one Tree, have but one and the same Life, 
Sap, and Fruitfulness. So Christ and the People have both one, and the 
same eternal Life: God' hath given us eternal Life, and this Life is in his 
Son. Therefore the Saviour saith, because Hive, ye shall live also. They 
have also the same Fruit, for the fruit is not of the branches distinct 
from the stem, nor of the stem without the branches. So also is Christ, 
who says, from me is thy Fruit found. [Hcsea 14 : 8.] 

In brief, if Jesus meant to teach us the Union subsisting between 
himself and his Church under the similitude of the Vine and its Branches, 
which he certainly did : Then, whatever can be said of the oneness of 



164 Third Particular Complaint, 

the Tree, consisting of Stock and Branches, as a Figure, can, with much 
more propriety, be said of Christ and the people united, as the Thing 
signified. The date of that Union which the Branches hath to the stem, 
is equal to their existence : Yea, as considered in the stock, the Union 
which made them one therewith was before they had any apparent 
existence. And, though the Vine-stock in itself may have the most fruit- 
ful qualities; yet it cannot exhibit the same, by bringing forth Fruit to 
perfection, except it first put forth its proper Branches : Therefore the 
existence of the Branches, yea the Union thereof to the Stem, and their 
Life therein, is before, yea necessarily antecedent to all their fruitful 
productions. So also is Christ; our Union to him bearing a superior 
Date to our apparent, personal existence. Therefore, said to be chosen 
in Him, and to have grace which was given us in Christ Jesus before the 
world began. ... In order to their fruitfulness, the Branches were 
purged in the Vine : There the superfluities of the whole were cut off, 
and all necessary for their perpetual fruitfulness accomplished. In like 
manner, the Church [ail men] included in Christ, were purged in him, in 
order to their fruitfulness. . . . The Vine thus purged, brings its fruit 
upon the native Branches : having no other medium of bringing it forth. 
Thus Christ brought forth all the fruit of his pure conception, his spot- 
less birth, his circumcision, and holy Life, his bloody, shameful and 
terrible Death, his glorious resurrection and ascension, upon the people, 
as the Branches. Having taken on him the seed of Abraham, he in them, 
and they in him, fulfilled all righteousness, obeyed the Law, and endured 
the penalty for the past transgression, being thus made perfect in one. 
"And because in all this the people were in passivity, and Christ the active 
consciousness, and quickening spirit of the whole ; therefore saith the 
Prophet, Lord, thou wilt ordain peace for us, for thou also hast wrought all 
our works in us. 1 

The Human Race the Body of Christ. 

The illustration which Relly and his followers used oftener, 
perhaps, than any otheiv to indicate their idea of the union of 
all men with Christ, was that of the oneness of the head and 
members in the human body. One of their favorite Scriptures 
was: "For as the body is one, and hath many members, and 
all the members of that one body, being man}^ are one body, so 
also is Christ." Upon this Scripture Relly remarks : — 

The compleat Body here spoken of is similar to Christ, and the Mem- 
bers which fill up this Body to the people. Take away the members, 
and there will remain no body ; take a few t yea one only away, and the 
body is not perfect; deny the proportionable perfection of any one of 

1 Union, pp. 29-33. 



Third Particular Complaint. 165 

these members, and then the Symmetry of the Body is destroyed. So 
also is Christ; take away the people [all the members of the human 
race], or deny that they were united to their Head Jesus at some cer- 
tain time, then was there at that time no Christ : Or, if all the Church 
[the entire race] were not united to Him, but some particular member, 
or members, stood at any time unrelated to him ; then was he not a 
perfect Christ at that time : Or, if it is possible that a bone of that Body 
should be broken, or a member be cut off, then may he yet be rendered 
an imperfect Christ : and withall a deficiency in his power will appear. 
. . . Or, if this Church [the race], as united to Christ, is not perfect 
according to the perfection of beauty, in Righteousness, Holyness, 
Wisdom ; &c. then is Christ deficient in those particulars : Which to 
affirm, will be agreed by all his worshipers, to be blasphemy. From 
hence we may infer, that whatever Jesus was, whatever he did, suffered, 
or now is, under the Character Christ, the people, as the fullness of him 
who filleth all in all, are not excluded ; but to be considered with him, 
and in him, in the same circumstances, and condition, through every 
dispensation. . . . This leads us to the consideration of the human 
Body, as the intelligible figure of this sublimity, our Union with Christ. 
The Head and Members are one in conception: This represents the 
people's oneness with Christ, as the object of the Father's love. Thou 
hast loved them, as thou hast loved me. As the Head and the Members 
are born at once: so Christ and his Church [the race] were united in his 
Birth ; as pure, and free from the original Taint. And also in his glori- 
ous resurrection, as born from the Dead. ... As the Head and Members 
in one Body have but one Life ; so Christ and his Church [the race] have 
but one eternal Life, one Life unto God ; our eternal life is in Christ. 1 

He [Christ], as having the People in Himself, had the right of 
redemption , and as them stood engaged to fulfill every requisite, to the 
glory of God, and their eternal salvation : which requisites were first a 
holy principle, a privation of original guilt, fulfilled in his Birth ; a just 
observance of the Law, and conformity to the Divine nature, fulfilled 
in his Life ; and a full propitiation for the sin that was past, accomplished 
in his sufferings and Death. The whole of w r hich He did ; as containing 
the People in Himself, who are upon that account, not only represented 
as being in Him, in his Birth, as above ; but also in the whole of his 
life, death, and resurrection. In him were they circumcised, and the 
body of the sins of their flesh put off by the circumcision of Christ, 
In him fulfilling the Law, and walking in all the ordinances of God 
blameless. Crucified with him ; and that the resurrection of Christ was 
the resurrection of the people from Death, as the wages of sin, the 
Holy Ghost testifies by the prophets. . . . From hence it is evident, 
that the union between Christ, and the People, was such (as Head and 
Members in one Body) that they w r ere with Him, and in Him. in his Birth, 
his Life, his Death, Resurrection and Glory. Therefore his Sufferings, 

1 Union, pp. 34, 35. 



166 Third Particular Complaiyit. 

Wars, and Triumphs, all are theirs: And they have a right from this, to 
rejoice in Him; in what He has done, in what He is; and in the accept- 
ance He hath found with the Father ; and that, over all the weakness, and 
vanity, they perceive in themselves. 1 

This Vital Union of all Men with Christ Precedes 
Personal Holiness. 
Kelly taught that all men are vitally united to Christ irrespect- 
ive of any act on their part and before they repent of their sins . 
or believe on Christ. He says : — 

But if what I have already offered to the consideration of the publick 
shall be allowed to have any weight, or argumentative force ; it will ap- 
pear, that our Union with Christ is not only antecedent to our Faith and 
believing, but also to all that he did, and suffered for us men and for our 
salvation. 2 

But to be brief, what hath already been urged to prove the necessity 
of Union, proves it to be also before faith ; it being necessary unto the 
Father's loving us, as he loved the Son, yea unto his choice of us in his 
son ; necessary unto the engagements of Christ on man's behalf, other- 
wise he had not the right of redemption ; necessary unto his suffering 
the Death of the Cross for us, as hath been largely shown in the 
former part of this work. 3 

The Race in Christ from All Eternity. 

Therefore if it is true, that Jesus was delivered for our offences, 
and raised again for our justification, and that before our Faith; that 
which was necessary unto this transaction, namely our Union with him, 
is true also before faith. If it is not our faith, or believing, that makes 
this Union, then it is an act of eternal Love, the purpose, and grace, which 
was given us in Christ Jesus before the world began; The Antiquity of 
which is obvious, nor may its Date be fixed, because exceeding the 
Limits of Time. And what hath been from everlasting, will be unto 
everlasting, the eternal sameness of the person of Jesus being an unde- 
niable proof of the unchangeableness of this Union. ... If the Union 
of Christ and the Church, is dependent on her faith, and knowledge of 
him, then it is proportioned unto her faith ; and admits of degrees, is 
also subject to change, yea may possibly be dissolved : . . . From all 
which it appears, that the Union of Christ and his Church [the race] 
hath been of old, before Faith, before Time : and remains to be indis- 
solvable, and unchangeable. 4 

All Impenitent Sinners are What Christ is. 

Our right and priviledge is to Judge of ourselves and our state towards 
God, by Union with Christ : By the Father's choice of him, His choice of 

i Union, pp.41, 42. 2 Ibid. p. 51. » Ibid. pp. 54, 55. * Ibid. pp. 58, 59,60. 



Third Particular Complaint. 167 

us ; by his love to Turn, his love unto us ; by his acceptance of him, his 
acceptance of its; by his eternal life and glory, our eternal life and 
glory : and all this without considering the work of our hands, or the 
desires, yearnings, or meditations of our Hearts. . . . But unto all the 
Gentiles, the outcasts, the destitute, the Sinners amongst Mankind; 
with all who know themselves, and groan beneath the miseries of man; 
Here are tidings of great Joy : there is a Saviour born unto you, a Sav- 
iour who is Christ the Lord ; and what is more, tho' you are worthless, 
He is worthy; though you are lost, He is found; though you are 
unrighteous, unholy, unwise, yet He is Righteous, Holy, Wise; and 
withall, so nearly related, so closely united unto you, that you may 
Reckon yourselves to be what he is, and viewing him as yourselves through 
all He did, and suffered, have your conscience purged from Dead works; 
stand washed, and acquitted in his Bloody Death, and have the answer 
of a good conscience towards God, by his resurrection. 1 

Personal Repentance, Faith, and Holiness of No Account. 

It is the Scripture testimony of Jesus, what he is, and what He hath 
done, and suffered, that is the ground of our confidence ; and not the 
reflection that we repent, believe, or obey; and it is most certain that 
this ground remaineth, that This foundation is unshaken, For Jesus 
Christ is the same Yesterday, To-day, and forever ; and that our unbelief, or 
any change passing over us in ourselves, cannot alter him who is un- 
changeable, and always Righteous and accepted. In him we are always 
as he is, according to which similitude God always beholds us, and 
accepts us ; therefore, our change of frame or disposition cannot change 
His views of us ; For, as he only beholds us in Jesus, He can always say, 
that he beholds no iniquity in Jacob, nor perverseness in Israel. . . . Sal- 
vation and Perfection in Jesus Christ our Lord, by Union with Him, is 
that glorious Truth, which first authorizes, encourages, and influences to 
believe, and that which preserves us spotless and acceptable unto God, 
when we fail to believe and credit his testimony. 2 

Man of Himself cannot do what God Requires of Him. 

Relly held that man of himself has no power to obey the com- 
mands of either the law or the gospel. The exhortations of Christ 
and the apostles, urging men to repent of their sins and believe 
on Christ for forgiveness, justification, and salvation, were re- 
garded by Relly as parts of the divine law, and he taught that 
man is utterly incapable of conforming to such exhortations. To 
the question, Why, then, is obedience to the law and the gospel 
required of men? Relly answers : — 

1 Union, pp. 90, 91. * j^a. pp. 96, 97. 



168 Third Particular Complaint. 

The Scriptures do not require this of man, as supposing him capable 
of it; for the coming of Jesus Christ into the world to save sinners 
proves the contrary : the law was given that the offence might abound, 
and the commandment took place that man might die. It was to dis- 
tinguish to man, between good and evil, and to make him sensible that 
he could not perform the good; to prepare the way of the Lord, by 
proving the necessity and utility of the Saviour's appearance, as the 
fulfiller of all righteousness, that the law took place : but Christ being 
come in the flesh, and having fulfilled all, In us and For us, his virtue 
and glory is ours, and we are taught to reckon by him, and not by the 
work of our own hands. 1 

Speaking of our relation to the law given in the Old Testa- 
ment, Relly affirms that we 

cannot personally fulfil its precepts, forasmuch as we are not under it. 

And he adds : — 

The law, in the New Testament, is made to detect, expose, and censure 
all human righteousness ; and that it doth continually, lest at any time 
the Christian man, forgetting the hole of the pit from whence he was 
digged, and the rock from whence he was hewn, should grow wise in 
his own eyes, and holy in his own conceit. 2 

Style of Writing. 

Relly's antique and uncouth style of writing, his abundant use 
of italics and capital letters, with his bad grammar and spelling, 
and his frequent use of words and phrases in other than their 
usual and true sense, are at first quite confusing to the reader. 
But after a careful examination of a few pages of any of his 
writings his meaning is much less obscure. If his purpose was 
to abate the odiousness of some of his doctrines by attaching to 
certain familiar words a new meaning, he was not successful. 
His pantheistic Universalism is poorly concealed by his using the 
word " church" to designate the human race, the word " people " 
to designate all men, and the scriptural phrase, " in Christ," to 
designate, not a voluntary union to Christ in quenchless love and 
sympathy, in undying faith and service, but an involuntary and 
necessary union, and even identity of every man with Christ in 
essence of being. However, of this vicious and dishonest practice 
of using familiar religious terms and phrases after one has 

1 True Christian Baptism, p . 74. 2 Ibid, p . 75. 



Tliird Particular Complaint. 169 

emptied them of all the meaning they have had, Relly was not 
more guilty than are the new-departure men of to-day. Indeed, 
the obscurity in the Rellyan writings of a century and more ago, 
so far as it arose from this unscholarly and indefensible practice, 
is not so great as is that arising from the same source in the writ- 
ings of the modern progressives at Andover. The old Rellyan 
progressives, like their lineal descendants of our time, never 
defined a theological term, phrase, or doctrine. Still no candid 
person at all versed in the science of theology can read the theo- 
logical writings of James Relly and carefully compare them with 
those of the progressive divines at Andover, and not admit that 
the two theologies, though bearing different names, are at their 
very centre and core and in nearly all their development abso- 
lutely the same. 

"Progressive Orthodoxy" is Rellyan Universalism. 

1. The above quotations from James Relly abundantly show 
that, in his belief, Christ is not simply present with all men, nor is 
He united to all men through their faith in Him, but He exists in 
organic and vital union with every member of the human race. 
This is the one radical, and regnant principle in Rellyanism. But 
it is also, according to the confession of the Andover progressives, 
the radical and regnant principle in "Progressive Orthodoxy." 

Christ the Life of All Men. 

2. Relly teaches that Christ exists in union with the entire 
human race by being the life of every man. But this is a central 
and indispensable dogma in "Progressive Orthodoxy," which 
affirms that Christ's " universe is not attached to him externally, 
but \itally. He is not a governor set over it, but is its life every- 
where." Of course, then, he is the life of every man. 

The Race-union with Christ Involuntary. 

3. Rellyanism holds that all men are united to Christ, not vol- 
untarily, or of their own choice through faith, but in the very 
constitution and essence of their being, and therefore involun- 
tarily and of absolute necessity, so far as their own wills are con- 
cerned. But this too is one of the fundamental beliefs set forth 



170 Third Particular Complaint, 

by " Progressive Orthodoxy," which declares that " the race" — 
not some men, but "the race is reconstituted in Christ," and 
that consequently it now contains powers for repentance and holi- 
ness, which — without its being "reconstituted in Christ" — 
"it would be hopelessly destitute of." 
% 

Christ and the Race One Person. 

4. It is a primary doctrine of Relly anism that Christ is in all 
men, and that all men are in Christ in such a way that together 
they constitute a single personality, "one person." Relly says : 

We are taught in the scriptures that our Lord Jesus Christ is not only 
our friend, our benefactor, our kinsman, our brother, but ourselves [the 
italics ours] : one flesh, one blood, one spirit with us : the people, as 
many, make one Christ ; as the members, being many, make one body. 
Christ and the church are considered in the scriptures, throughout the 
whole of his undertakings and attainments, as but one person [italics 
ours] ; in the articles of his sufferings and death as the guilty sinner, 
whose soul was doomed to die ; and in his resurrection, as the righteous, 
the sanctified, made perfect through sufferings. Jesus being thus made 
of God unto us wisdom, righteousness, sanctification, and redemption; 
He being the New-Creature, the perfect Man, not only for Himself, but 
for the people : . . . from hence we have an undoubted right, to con- 
sider him as our New-Man ; and to deny every self, in our appeal to the 
Highest, but Him who is our perfect self. 1 

But this oneness in personality of Christ and the human race is 
likewise a central and vital doctrine in " Progressive Orthodoxy," 
which dwells much upon Christ's person as vitally attached to, and 
containing in itself, the entire human race, and which declares of 
Christ that He is " the universal man," "the universal Person." 2 
The doctrine of "Progressive Orthodoxy" is that Christ, wher- 
ever He is and whatever He does, even when lifted upon the cross, 
includes in his personality all men who ever did or ever will exist. 
Its language is : — 

No member of the race is separate from him who thus offers himself. 3 

What Christ Is and Does, the Race Is and Does. 

5. It is the repeated affirmation of James Relly that Christ 
and all men are so united and included in one person that his con- 
dition and acts are theirs, and that their condition and acts are 

i The True Christian Baptism, p. 98. 2 Prog. Orth. pp. 53, 63. 3 Ibid. p. 66. 



Third Particular Complaint. 171 

his, and that this is true irrespective of their character as sinful 
or holy. According to this teaching, the most wicked men in the 
race, even when persisting in their wickedness, are so vitally 
united to Christ that all his holy experiences and works are theirs. 
But this is also the teaching of " Progressive Orthodoxy." We 
are told that " When Christ suffers, the race suffers. When 
Christ is sorrowful the race is sorrowful " ; that the race can sig- 
nify its penitence "by pointing to Christ, and by giving expres- 
sion in Him to repentance which no words could utter." (Italics 
ours.) That is, when Christ is sorrowful in view of the sins of 
the human race, the race is sorrowful in Christ's sorrow. Christ 
in sorrowing for all the sins of the race is repenting of them. 
But what Christ does the race does. When Christ repents, the 
race repents. How a sinless being can repent of sins, we are not 
told. But all the same, this is " Progressive Orthodoxy." And 
"Progressive Orthodoxy" is Rellyanism. And Rellyanism is 
Universalism as well as Pantheism — the very kind of Universal- 
ism which the Founders of Andover Seminary had in mind when 
they wrote their Statute requiring that every professor on their 
Foundation, to the end of time, should solemnly promise to 
oppose Universalism. 

Personal Obedience and Holiness not Conditions op Vital 
Union with Christ. 

6. According to Rellyanism, this organic and vital union of 
Christ with all men precedes the repentance and faith of men. 
Indeed it exists, as already shown, irrespective of their own moral 
and religious character. The most wicked, as well as the most 
righteous, men are in Christ, as a constituent part of his Person, 
before they repent of their sins, or believe on him, or even know 
of his existence. This is a cardinal Rellyan doctrine. 

But it is also a cardinal doctrine of " Progressive Orthodoxy." 
The belief of the Andover progressives is that repentance and 
faith are impossible without this union, and that the union itself 
is a oneness of all men with Christ, not in character but in essence 
of being, and of course precedes all personal obedience and 
holiness. But they are slow to reason from this belief as a pre- 
mise. They have not yet told us how old this union is. It exists 
before repentance ; but how long before ? The progressiveness 



172 Third Particular Complaint. 

of these professors is their standing boast. They are nothing 
if they are not progressive. Yet, in truth, they are at least a 
century and a half behind the times. The unlearned Relly, in the 
middle of the last century, taking this same principle of the organic 
and vital union of all men with Christ as a premise, reasoned 
from it with a vigor and boldness, and reached legitimate conclu- 
sions with a swiftness which should put to shame the drowsy and 
tardy progressives at Andover. He argued that if the very 
essence and life of Christ's being are constituent parts of every 
man's being, then every man's union with Christ was not simply 
before repentance and faith, but also before time ; indeed, was 
" from everlasting," and "will be unto everlasting," " indissolv- 
able and unchangeable." Every man, therefore, has been a con- 
stituent part of the being of Christ through all past eternity, and 
will be such through all the eternity that is to come. We repeat, 
the progressives at Andover have for years accepted the iden- 
tical premise from which Relly deduced the truth of every man's 
existence in Christ from all eternity, and it is not to the credit of 
their scholarship that an unlettered man one hundred and fifty 
years ago reached such a legitimate and grand conclusion, while 
they, with their superior scholastic advantages ha.ve not reached 
it yet. It should be remembered, however, that the men of 
advanced thought at Andover are, by force of circumstances, 
lingering long in a transition state. If they retain their comfort- 
able positions in a well-endowed Seminary, they must keep them- 
selves in some kind of connection with the Seminary Creed. So 
they are attempting the impossible feat of standing with one foot 
on the permanent Andover Creed, and the other foot on their own 
ever-changing Orthodoxy. But the exhibition they are making of 
themselves in this attempted theological straddle is as ridiculous 
as it is unscholarly. If they would only found a Seminary of 
their own, for the express and sublime purpose of recovering the 
old pagan Pantheism of ancient Greece and India, and of adjust- 
ing Christianity to that Pantheism after the manner adopted by 
James Relly, they would make much swifter progress than they 
have yet made, and although it would be backward towards 
heathenism, they would be guilty of no perversion of trust funds, 
and in this particular at least would stand before God and the 
world as honest men. 



Third Particular Complaint. 173 

Man Repents only in Union with Christ. 

7. Rellyanism teaches, as has been clearly set forth in one of 
the quotations made above from James Relly, that while man of 
himself cannot repent, nor obey any of the commands of the 
gospel, yet in organic and vital union with Christ, and as a 
constituent part of his very person, he can and does repent. As 
every man is literally and constitutionally " in Christ" when 
Christ is sorrowful for the sins of the world every man is sorrow- 
ful, though Christ is active in and conscious of this sorrow, and 
man is passive in and unconscious of it. When Christ, in the days 
of his flesh, offered up prayers and supplications with strong 
crying and tears, He repented of the sins of the whole race ; 
and when He thus repented, the race, which was passively and 
unconsciously in Him, repented also. Such is the teaching of 
Rellyanism. 

Such also is the teaching of "Progressive Orthodoxy." The 
latter affirms that u man of himself cannot repent," but " when 
Christ is sorrowful, the race is sorrowful." The Andover pro- 
gressives refer approvingly to McLeod Campbell's wild theory of 
race-repentance in Christ's repentance, and they boldly declare 
that " The entire race . . . renders in Him [Christ] a complete 
repentance." It hardly needs to be again repeated that this 
belief and this teaching of James Relly and of the Andover pro- 
fessors are in outright antagonism to the Andover Creed, which 
affirms, " that man has understanding and corporeal strength 
[full mental and bodily ability] to do all that God requires of 
him ; so that nothing, but the sinner's aversion to holiness, pre- 
vents his salvation." Never, within the range of our knowledge, 
has there been a more glaring and undeniable violation of sacred 
engagements than that of which those Andover professors are 
guilty, who have maintained and inculcated, on Andover Founda- 
tions, the pantheistic Universalism which is inseparable from their 
own and James Relly's theory of repentance. 

John Murray's Rellyanism. 
We now call the attention of the Board of Visitors to the fact 
that John Murray, "the father of Universalism in America," 
who, as we have shown, was well known to the Founders of An- 
dover Seminary, and with whose singular and divisive theological 



174 Third Particular Complaint. 

beliefs the Founders were perfectly familiar, was himself a thor- 
oughgoing Rellyanist. He accepted and preached the Universal- 
istic and pantheistic beliefs of James Relly without abatement, 
and also without addition, save as he may have exceeded his 
teacher in the violent wresting of Scripture and in the adroit con- 
cealment of his Universalism when his personal interests or suc- 
cess required it. The central and essential principle in his the- 
ology, as in that of Relly and in ''Progressive Orthodoxy," is 
the organic and vital union of the entire human race with Christ. 
All his development and applications of this principle were 
thoroughly Relly an, and in full accord with recent progressive 
teachings at Andover. A few citations from the writings of John 
Murray will make the truth of these statements evident. 

The Life of Christ and of Man One Life. 
Speaking of the one life that is common to Christ and to all 
men, Murray passionately exclaims : — 

Yea, were every man in the world to unite in their testimony against 
this truth, viz. that God hath given me, and every man, life, and that this 
life is in his son, I would still say, Let God be true and every man a liar. 1 

" Again," Murray remarks, " if the people had not been in him [Christ], 
in all he wrought, they could not be the righteousness of God in him, nor 
could he, according to justice, be the life of the world ; for neither the 
world in general, nor any individual of the world, can be the subject of 
life, according to the rule of divine truth and justice, without that 
righteousness which alone gives a legal title thereto. If, saith divine 
truth, thou wilt enter into life, keep the commandments ; this is accord- 
ing to the Law. — and heaven and earth shall pass away before one jot 
or tittle of the Law shall pass unfulfilled. . . . Hence then, he [Christ] 
is the life of the world in consequence of the union subsisting between him 
and the people, as exemplified under the figure>of the head and the mem- 
bers of which the Spirit spake, when by the Apostle he said, I would not 
have you ignorant that the head of every man is Christ. Now, as in nature 
what is done by the head is with spirit, justice and propriety said to be 
done by the whole man, so what was done by Jesus as every man's head f 
made under the Law, is according to strict justice in God's sight consid- 
ered as done by every man. The revelation of this is indeed glad tidings 
to every creature." 2 

This fanciful doctrine, that whatever Christ does or suffers as 
the Head, the race, as the body of Christ, also does and suffers, 

1 Letters and Sketches of Sermons, by John Murray, vol. i, p. 46. 2 Universalism 
in America, by Richard Eddy, D.D., vol. i, p. 487. 



Third Particular Complaint. 175 

it will be observed, is the exact doctrine set forth by James Relly 
and by " Progressive Orthodoxy." This dogma is grounded upon 
the belief that Christ and the race constitute one person, and 
this belief is grounded upon the pantheistic notion that the life of 
Christ and the world, and of all men, is one and the same life. 
Hence Murray held that Christ is "the only life of the world," 
and " of every individual in it." In his view there is but one 
Life. Its source is in the Lord Jesus, but it pervades the ivorld. 
It is, however, the oneness of this Life in Christ and in all men 
upon which he chiefly and most exultingly dwells. In his belief, 
Christ and the human race, in some real sense, constitute one per- 
son, having one life. Christ in his personality is not complete 
without the race, and the race is not complete without Christ. 
Hence Christ is "the fulness " or completion of the race; and 
the race is "the fulness" or completion of Christ. He often 
designates the entire human race as " the human nature," and 
sometimes as "the nature." His idea of this vital union of all 
men with Christ he often sets forth by the illustration of the 
living union of the human body with its head, as in the following 
language : — 

I would not, said the Apostle Paul, have you ignorant of this : Of 
what ? that the head of every man is Christ, lest you should be wise in 
your own conceit. Now if Jesus be the head and the fulness of the 
nature he assumed, and we are his body, then the body is safe; for 
although the waters of the adversary ascended to the neck, they could 
reach no farther. It is notorious that if the whole man be immersed 
in water, even to the neck, if the head be held above water, life is pre- 
served. But reverse the figure, let the head be enveloped in water, and 
death is the certain consequence. Thus, blessed be God, Jesus is the 
life, is the head of every man, the life of the whole body. Your life is 
hid with Christ in God. 1 

God is manifested in the flesh, and, thus manifested, he is, in deed and 
in truth, the life of the world, so that it is impossible to know God, and 
not to know my life. Moreover, I have life precisely in the way that 
the blinded children of this world would find it if they could, that is, by 
keeping the law ; for, said the great Master, I come not to destroy the 
law and the prophets, but to fulfill them. Now he did, or he did not 
fulfil the law. If he did, I also have fulfilled the law, for the head of 
every man is Christ : and whatever is done by my head is assuredly done 
by my whole body. 2 

1 Letters and Sketches of Sermons, vol. ii, p. 187. 2 Ibid. vol. ii, pp. 368, 369. 



176 Third Particular Complaint. 

Man of Himself Cannot Repent. 

In this last citation Murray intimates that the blinded children 
of this world would obtain life by personally keepiDg the law " if 
they could." This implies, that, in his view, man of himself can- 
not obey God. Upon the question of man's personal ability to 
do what God requires of him, his teaching is in perfect accord 
with that of Relly and that of "Progressive Orthodoxy." He 
held that man of himself has no power of any kind to obey the 
commands either of the divine law or of the gospel, but that 
Christ's union with every man is such that when Christ keeps the 
decalogue, every man keeps it ; when Christ repents, every man 
repents ; and when Christ believes, every man believes. 

The Union of Every Man with Christ is from Everlasting. 

Murray also accords with Relly in believing that every man was 
united to Christ, or to God in Christ, not only before repentance 
and faith, but before time, even from everlasting. The following 
is believed to be a correct statement of Murray's belief upon this 
point, and in several other particulars : — 

He believed that the creation of human beings made a part of the 
divine purpose; in which sacred, uncontrollable, and irreversible pur- 
pose, the whole family of man were originally and intimately united to 
their august Creator, in a manner mysterious, and as much beyond 
our limited conception, as the Creator is superior to the creature whom 
He hath formed. 

Adam the first was a figure of Adam the second. Adam the first, the 
prototype ; Adam the second, the substance of the prototype, the Crea- 
tor of all Worlds, the Lord from Heaven. The sacred Scriptures abound 
with figures of this mysterious, this ennobling, this soul-satisfying 
Union; among which, perhaps, none is more expressive than that of the 
Head and Members constituting one body, of which Jesus Christ was 
the immaculate Head. . . . We are members of the body of Christ, who 
is the head of every man. Should a single member of this mystical body 
be finally lost, the Redeemer must, through eternity, remain imperfect. 

A Law was given, to the complete obedience of which, everlasting 
life was annexed ; but no individual member was ever able to fulfil this 
Law ; it was only the head and members collectively in their glorious head, 
that was furnished with abilities adequate to a performance of such 
vast magnitude. Yea, verily, we do indeed break the Divine Law, in 
thought, in word, and in deed, and the lip of truth declares, he who 
offends in one point is guilty of all. 



Third Particular Complaint. Ill 

Why then was the commandment so exceeding broad? To convince 
mankind of imbecility ; and that the rectitude they had forfeited, could 
never, in their own individual characters be regained. But the plan of 
Deity was without an error, the revolution of time ushered in the great 
Representative, or more properly speaking, the Head of the body ; and 
the forfeit was paid, full atonement was presented, the ransom given, 
and, in this hour of Nature's Jubilee, the prodigal family restored to 
their original possessions. 1 

The Identity of Christ's Human Nature with that of 
Every Man. 

Moreover, Murray taught that Christ's human nature was not 
simply that of his own single and distinct personality, but was 
the human nature of every man, and that consequently every 
child of Adam has a right to regard Christ's human nature as 
identically his own, and his own as identically that of Christ. In 
proof of his view, he cites the Scripture so often repeated by 
him, " The head of every man is Christ." (1 Cor. 11:3.) But 
beyond question, the Apostle means by " every man," not every 
member of the human race, but simply every Christian man. 
Yet Murray presumes to set forth and establish, on the authority 
of this Scripture thus wrested, his pantheistic scheme of the 
absolute numerical oneness of Christ's human nature with the 
human nature of every child of Adam. His language is as 
follows : — 

That human nature, in which the Divine Nature condescended to be 
clothed, was not distinct from the rest as one body is from another. 
No, assuredly no ; the clothing of the Eedeemer in this body, was the 
giving him a part of that flesh in which the children, all the children 
were clothed. Hence the character bestowed upon, and received by 
Emmanuel. The head of every man is Christ. . . . Now my head is as 
much a part of one part of my body as the other ; and it is in as perfect 
union with my feet as my hands ; it is as much the life of one member 
as of another. . . . The human nature of Emmanuel is part of every 
child's flesh ; and every human soul inhabiting a tenement of flesh has 
as much right to lift his adoring eye to Jesus Christ, as a part of him- 
self, as any member of my body might, if it had sense in itself, claim, 
my head as a part of itself. Jesus is not flesh and bone, distinct from 
our flesh and bone, but he is flesh of our flesh, and bone of our bone. 
For both he who sanctifieth, and they who are sanctified are all of one. 
And this is at all times the comprehensive character of the Eedeemer, 

!The Life of Rev. John Murray, edited by Rev. L. S. Everett, p. 265. 



178 Third Particular Complaint. 

insomuch that when he was born without sin. we were in that eventful 
moment created anew in Christ Jesus ; when he was crucified, we were 
crucified with Christ Jesus ; when he died we were buried by baptism 
into his death ; and when he arose [were] raised up from the dead by 
the glory of the Father, even so that we also should walk in newness of 
life. . . . And we ascended with Christ, being heirs of God and joint 
heirs with Christ. 1 

We Ourselves are Christ. 

Murray also says : — 

When we behold Christ Jesus, we behold ourselves, for he is the head 
of every man. In him dwelleth all fulness. In Christ Jesus, both Jew 
and Gentile constitute one new man. In one word, it is in Christ Jesus, 
that all things are made new. 2 

Every Man a Son of God in the Sense that Christ is. 

Mnrray taught that all men are sons of God, not because they 
have been born of God, or have been renewed in the spirit of 
their minds, but because they are all so vitally united to the Son 
of God that they partake, in the very essence of their being, of 
his divine sonship. He says : — 

The christian is not to consider himself alone when he addresses the 
throne of grace. He is not to say my Father, but, as we have the adop- 
tion of sons by Christ Jesus, we should ever keep in devout and grate- 
ful recollections this mighty blessing, this mysterious union, especially 
when addressing the divine Nature, the Sire of angels and of men, the 
creating God. . . . God doth not become our Father consequent upon 
our supplications. Certainly not; he was our Father before a single 
cry of distress passed our supplicating lips; and why? because he was 
and is the Father of Christ Jesus ; and as the head of every man is Christ, 
and the head of Christ is God, so every man is allowed to view himself 
as a member of his glorious body. . . . Hence although as descended 
from the first Adam, we are from beneath, yet as allied to the second 
Adam we are from above? 

Man's Supreme Need is to " Know Christ as He is." 

Murray eschewed evangelical repentance and faith. He never 
called on men to repent of their sins or to believe on Christ as 
a condition of their forgiveness, justification, and salvation from 
sin and eternal death. In his view men are utterly powerless to 

1 Murray's Letters and Sketches, vol. i, p. 255. 2 Ibid. vol. iii, p. 120. 3 Ibid. vol. 
iii, pp. 203, 204. 



Third Particular Complaint. 179 

conform to such requirements. Moreover, they have already 
repented in Christ's perfect repentance, and believed in Christ's 
perfect faith, and therefore are already forgiven and redeemed 
from sin and death. But the great mass of men do not know 
this. They do not believe it. They are living in utter ignorance 
and unbelief respecting the true gospel and the true Christ. 
Consequently Murray continually insisted upon the indispensable- 
ness of knoiving Christ, of hearing of Him, of learning of Him, 
and of being taught of God respecting Him. But what is this 
''knowledge of Christ" which is so indispensable? It is the 
knowledge of Him in the constitution of his person, as vitally 
united to the human race and to every member of it, as including 
all men in himself. In other words it is the knowledge of Betty- 
anism that is of such infinite moment. To know Christ as He is 
in the constitution of his person, as including the entire human 
race in his being — this is the true knowledge of Christ without 
which there is no blessedness. All men, with or without this 
knowledge, are redeemed and can no more be lost than Christ can 
be lost ; for they exist in the very constitution of his person. 
But when they are ignorant of all this they often live in remorse 
and terror. What they supremely need, therefore, is not per- 
sonal sorrow for their sins, nor personal faith, nor personal 
righteousness, but a certain kind of knowledge. When they hear 
and learn of their identity with Christ and with God in Christ, and 
know that Christ is their life, that He is so in them and they so in 
Him that what He is they are, and what He does they do, irrespec- 
tive of their own moral character and lives — when they know and 
believe all this, then they are delivered from all their fears and 
forebodings and are filled with peace and the larger hope. Murray 
taught that it is of the utmost moment that men should believe; — 
but believe what ? Believe Relly anism; believe that all men are 
in Christ, that He is their life, and that they can no more perish 
than Christ can perish, do what they will. Believing this men are 
saved from all present anxiety and torment, whatever may be their 
moral character and lives. Murray made a distinction between 
redemption and salvation. All men are redeemed from the death 
eternal by their vital and deathless union with Christ. But only 
those are saved from " a certain fearful looking for of judgment " 
to come, who have " knowledge of Christ," who know him as lie 



180 TJiird Particular Complaint. 

is, as vitally and eternally united to every human being and as 
including all men in himself. This knowledge does not save from 
sin, but only from the fear of punishment. It was also held by 
Murray, as by Relly and the Andover progressives, that all men 
will have this saving knowledge in due time, if not in this life,, 
then in the next life. In proof of these statements we present 
a few quotations from Murray's writings. He says : — 

Jesus Christ is now, and forever will be, the life of the world, which 
divine truth will, in due time be testified, for it is written, They shall all 
be taught of God; and when they are all taught of God, they shall 
know him ; and when they know him, they shall believe in him ; and 
when they believe in him, they shall be saved from the misery which is 
consequent upon unbelief. 1 

As many as have the light of the knowledge of the glorious gospel 
shining into their hearts are wise; they have the knowledge of those 
things which make for their peace, and they enter in, and find rest and 
peace to their souls; and as many as have not this light are foolish, 
they know not the things which make for their peace, and therefore 
cannot enter in either to rest or peace. But it is written, they shall be 
all taught of God, and they shall know him from the least of them unto 
the greatest of them. 2 

Is the sinner miserable, from the knowledge of his unrighteousness, 
when he is told, the unrighteous shall not inherit the kingdom of heaven? 
He is saved from this misery the moment he hears and believes that the 
name whereby the Redeemer shall be called, is " the Lord our righteous- 
ness." Is he convinced that without holiness no man can see the Lord, 
and that if he regards iniquity in his heart, the Lord will not hear him? 
Is his soul distressed in consequence thereof? . . . When the gospel is 
preached to him, assuring him that Jesus is made unto him sanctification, 
that this great High Priest wears on his head for us holiness to the Lord, 
and that we are authorized to view that head, thus adorned, as our head, 
hearing that the head of every man is Christ, and the head of Christ is 
God; — when these divine gospel truths are heard and believed, he is 
completely saved from condemnation or damnation 3 

It is a blessed thing to know God. We are told it is life eternal to 
know God, but certainly it is not life eternal to know God, except we 
know God as he is, the life of the world. It is a blessed thing to know 
God in this character, for in knowing him to be the life of the world, 
each individual of the world, who thus knows him, knows him to be his 
life, and each individual thus taught can say of himself, God is my life, 
and he whom God gives by his Spirit's teaching thus to know him, is an 
individual of that little remnant, who is saved in consequence of believing ; 

1 Letters and Sketches, vol. i, p. 52. 2 Ibid. vol. i, p. 270. 3 Ibid. vol. i, p. 374. 



Third Particular Complaint, 181 

but this not to the exclusion of the rest, for when every eye shall see, then 
every heart will consequently believe. 1 

Yet it is an established truth, that every believer was once an unbeliever ; 
every believer, then, was once damned, and it was only when he became 
a believer, that he was saved from the countless agonies, which erst times 
pierced him through with many sorrows. But he was redeemed, the 
price was paid ere ever he was called into existence. Thus, in his view, 
redemption and salvation are distinct considerations. The preacher un- 
hesitatingly believed, all who learned of the Father would come to Jesus, 
and that all would finally be taught of God.' 2 

Growth in Grace. 

In harmony with his view of the indispensableness of knowing 
Christ, as He is, in the constitution of his person and in his vital 
relation to the human race, Murray held that " growth in grace " 
is not advancement in personal holiness and goodness, or in per- 
sonal likeness to our Lord, but is growth in this unique knowledge 
of Christ. This is indicated in the following extract : — 

Ye are not, says the apostle, under the law, but under grace. By grace 
are ye saved; and, he adds, in this grace ye stand. Doubtless, then, to 
know more and more of this salvation is to grow in grace. We first learn 
we are saved from damnation due to our past sins by his death, and 
immediately look for holiness in ourselves ; but, being in grace, we soon 
grow strong enough to know that He who was our death, is also our 
life, by being our holiness. Thus by little and little, we grow into him, in 
all things, until we are enabled to believe that we are wise in his wisdom, 
righteous in his righteousness, holy in his holiness, strong in his strength, 
suffering all things in his sufferings, doing all things commanded in the 
law, in his doings ; and from hence we proceed to believe, that he who is 
our head, is the head of every man, that He, who by the grace of God 
tasted death for us, by the same grace tasted death for every man ; that 
he who is our wisdom, is every man's wisdom ; that he who is our right- 
eousness, is every man's righteousness ; that he who is our sanctification or 
holiness, is every man's sanctification or holiness; that he who hath. 
accepted us, hath accepted every man, in the beloved, and that if we have 
a legal title to that kingdom, which the unrighteous cannot inherit, 
in consequence of our being righteous in the Lord our righteousness, 
every man hath the same title : and that as he who gave himself a ransom 
for all, must be testified in due time, every one in due time shall know 
him as well as we know him, shall believe in him, and believing in him, 
shall be saved from all that misery, which is consequent upon a disbelief 
of these God honoring, man restoring truths. 3 

1 Letters and Sketches, vol. iii, p. 322. 2 The Life of John Murray, edited by Rev. 
L. S. Everett, p. 266. s Letters and Sketches, vol. i, pp. 9S, 99. 



182 Third Particular Complaint. 

The extracts now presented from the writings and biography 
of John Murray set forth explicitly the nature of his theological 
beliefs. In view of these statements of his theology, we offer 
the following remarks : — 

Rellyanism is Universalism. 
1. John Murray was a Universalist. He was a Universalist of 
the most pronounced type. The particular form of his Universal- 
ism was that which since the middle of the last century has been 
known under the name of Rellyanism. It cannot be questioned 
that he was a thoroughgoing Rellyan Universalist. It is true — 
and a pity it is that it is true — that, during the early years of his 
preaching in this country, he concealed the fact that he was a 
Universalist. He went from place to place, after the manner of 
an evangelist or missionary, addressing the people whenever and 
wherever an opportunity was given him ; but usually he at first 
made the impression that he was an orthodox preacher, and as 
such he was cordially received into the pulpits of many evangeli- 
cal, orthodox churches. He also received his support from ortho- 
dox or evangelical Christian people ; some of whom were ardent 
friends of George Whitefield, and at first looked upon Murray as 
quite likely to become a second Whitefield. After this manner 
he preached for several years. At last the imposition he was 
practising upon the people was exposed in Boston. He was pub- 
licly charged with the sin of "hiding" as it was termed; of 
sailing under false colors ; of playing the role of an impostor by 
pretending to be an orthodox preacher, only somewhat progress- 
ive, when in fact he was a Rellyan Universalist. Great excite- 
ment followed the exposure. Some of the friends he had made 
in Boston stood by him. But many of the people denounced him. 
He could not, however, refute the charge, and thenceforth he was 
known as a Rellyan Universalist. He became a notable character 
in the country, and he is called in history "The Father of Uni- 
versalism in America." This last fact is conclusive evidence, 
even if there were no other, that he was a Universalist. 

The Founders of Andover Seminary had Knowledge of 

Murray. 
2. John Murray, as has already been shown, was well known 
to the Founders of Andover Seminary. Some of them had been 



Tliird Particular Complaint. 183 

brought into unwelcome acquaintance with Rellyanism, had made 
a study of it, and certainly were well informed respecting its 
divisive and perversive influence in many of the orthodox churches 
in New England. The authors of the Andover Creed, we repeat, 
were u Hopkitfsians," or, as they preferred to be called, " Con- 
sistent Calvinists." Men belonging to this school of theology 
appear to have taken the lead in opposing the Rellyan Universal- 
ism of John Murray, believing it to be antagonistic to the 
gospel of Christ and hazardous to the souls of men. In view 
of facts already given (pages 160, 161) it is as certain as 
almost any historical fact can be, that when the authors of the 
Andover Creed, and all the Founders, determined that every pro- 
fessor in their Seminary should be solemnly pledged to oppose 
Universalism, they had chiefly in mind the Rellyanism of John 
Murray. 

Moreover, there can be no question that, in at least two other 
instances, they used language in writing the Creed which was 
designed to make it forever impossible for any professor, if an 
honest man, to believe in and teach Rellyanism in their Seminary. 
One of these instances we shall refer to later, the other we desire 
to notice now. 

Rellyanism and the Andover Creed. 

3. Every professor in Andover Seminary, in taking the Creed, 
makes this declaration among others : — 

I believe, . . . that repentance, faith and holiness are personal requi- 
sites in the Gospel scheme of salvation. 

What is the meaning of that word "personal ," and what was 
the intent of the Founders in placing it in their Creed, as descrip- 
tive of those conditions of salvation which the gospel requires 
every sinful man to fulfil? This word in such connection is not 
found in the Westminster Confession or Catechism, nor in any 
other confession of faith, so far as we can learn. It is new in the 
Andover Creed. How came it there? The author of that Creed, 
his advisers, and all the Founders of the Seminary, were painfully 
aware that for some thirty-seven years it had been loudly pro- 
claimed far and wide in New England, not only that man of him- 



184 Third Particular Complaint. 

self, ox personally, cannot repent, or believe, or be holy, but also 
that " in Christ ," " in union with Christ ," in Christ's repentance, 
faith, and holiness all men can, and actually do, repent, believe, and 
become holy. They knew to their sorrow that for years Murray 
and his followers had been publicly inculcating the delusive doc- 
trine that when Christ suffers, the race suffers ; that when Christ 
sorrows in view of human sins and guilt, the race sorrows ; that 
when Christ repents, the race repents ; and that whatever Christ 
does, the race, as included in his person, does. This doctrine the 
Founders believed to be false, deceptive, and hazardous to the 
souls of men. Consequently they determined that every pro- 
fessor in their Seminary should be solemnly pledged to hold and 
teach, in absolute opposition to the Rellyan error, that every man 
who would be saved must himself personally repent, personally 
believe on Christ, and be personally righteous ; that " repentance, 
faith, and holiness are personal requisites in the gospel scheme of 
salvation," in the sense that, according to the gospel of Christ, 
no man, who does not personally , in himself and not in another, 
fulfil these conditions of salvation, can ever enter the kingdom of 
God. In other words, that peculiar phrase, "personal requisites" 
was aimed directly at the Rellyan Universalism of that time, and 
of our time, and was designed to make it forever impossible for 
any honest man to teach the pantheistic doctrine of race-repent- 
ance in Union with Christ, in Andover Seminary. 

The Defendant Teaching Rellyanism in Andover Seminary. 

4. Now we complain that, in spite of all these strong barriers, 
so carefully erected by the Founders for the special purpose of 
keeping this universalistic and pantheistic doctrine of race-repent- 
ance through union with Christ forever out of the Seminary, the 
defendant, in violation of his own solemn promise, and of the 
Constitution and Statutes of this sacred Institution, and in oppo- 
sition to the known intent of its Founders, is now maintaining 
and inculcating, in Andover Seminary, and by means of the 
funds of the Founders, this same pestilential and corrupting error 
of race-repentance and race-salvation. This is our complaint. 
We charge before the Board of Visitors, who have supreme 
authority to remedy this grievous wrong, that under cover of this 
new and pretentious name, "Progressive Orthodoxy ," the old, 



Tliird Particular Complaint. 185 

defunct, and long-buried error of Rellyan Universalism has been 
raised from its grave, and in all its offensiveness paraded and 
commended in Andover Seminary as a "new theology " just dis- 
covered, of which the benighted Founders knew nothing, and 
which therefore may properly be promulgated from their Seminary 
and by means of their funds, in the place of, and to the utter 
exclusion of, the doctrines of personal evangelical repentance and 
faith which the Seminary was founded to maintain and inculcate. 
We submit to the Visitors, and also to that august tribunal of 
intelligent, honest Christian people the world over, that we have 
maintained our charge. We claim to have shown conclusively, 
by quotations from James Relly and John Murray compared with 
quotations from the writings of the progressive divines at Andover, 
that " Progressive Orthodoxy," in its "central and vital princi- 
ple," is identically the old Rellyan Universalism so well known to 
the Founders, and is one of the specified errors which the Sem- 
inary was founded to oppose. 

Conclusion. 

If anything can be made clear, the citations now presented 
do make it clear that Rellyan Universalism and "Progressive 
Orthodoxy " alike maintain and teach that Christ is the life of the 
world and of every individual in it ; that all men are united to 
Christ, not of their own volition or choice, but involuntarily, and 
in the very constitution of their own and of Christ's personality ; 
that Christ is so in all men, and all men are so in Christ, that, 
in some mystical yet real sense, they together constitute one 
Man, one " universal Person" and that, consequently, when 
Christ suffers, the race suffers ; when Christ is sorrowful, 
the race is sorrowful ; when Christ repents, the race repents ; 
whatever Christ does, the race does, and whatever Christ is, the 
race is, in spite of all its wickedness. 

As we claim, it has been proved that Rellyan Universalism 
and " Progressive Orthodoxy" both, and with equal earnestness, 
maintain and teach that this organic and vital union of Christ 
with all men precedes all repentance and faith on the part of men ; 
that this union itself is not at all the product of man's repentance 
and faith, Christian love, sympathy, and devotion, but that every 
man, irrespective of his own moral and religious character, is, 



186 Third Particular Complaint. 

and has been from the first moment of his existence, included 
in the personality of Christ, and in the very essence of his 
being. 

It has been made abundantly evident that Rellyan Univer- 
salism and "Progressive Orthodoxy" are agreed in maintaining 
that man of himself, or personally, cannot repent, or believe on 
Christ, or obey any of the commands of the gospel ; that repent- 
ance, faith, and holiness are not personal requisites in the 
gospel scheme of salvation. These two theologies are perfectly 
at one in accepting the anti-Scriptural notion that the entire race 
renders in Christ a complete repentance, so that God sees in every 
man, from Adam to the last-born member of the race, a penitent 
man, not because each man personally repents (for personally he 
does not and can not repent) , but because God sees Christ in every 
man. It may be said of these two theologies, the one now taught 
in Andover Seminary and that preached by John Murray for 
forty years in eastern Massachusetts, that they both alike call for 
a most preposterous faith. They demand that we shall be able to 
believe in the perfect repentance of all impenitent sinners, in the 
perfect faith of all unbelieving souls, in the perfect righteousness 
of all wicked men, and in the perfect divinity of all depraved 
humanity. They alike call upon us to believe that the supreme 
need of fallen man is simply to know Christ as he is in the con- 
stitution of his person, as including in himself the entire human 
race, and that having that " knowledge of Christ," he will be for- 
ever free, even in his sins, from all remorse of conscience and 
fearful forebodings ; and also to believe that every man, as sure 
as God is just, will " sooner or later " have that. " knowledge of 
Christ," if not in this world, then in the next. Thus accordant 
are these two systems of belief. "Rellyan Universalism " and 
" Progressive Orthodoxy " are essentially one and the same the- 
ology. Hence we claim to have shown that the defendant is 
maintaining and inculcating in Andover Seminary the very Uni- 
versalism which he has solemnly and religiously promised to 
oppose. Not only has our third particular charge, namely, that 
Professor Smyth holds and teaches "that no man has power or 
capacity to repent," been proved, but, in proving this, it has also 
been shown that this peculiar doctrine of man's impotence to re- 
pent, save as he is vitally united to Christ, is an essential part of, 



Third Particular Complaint. 187 

and carries with it, that whole scheme of pantheistic error, which 
was well known to the Founders under the name of Rellyan Uni- 
versalism, and against the teaching of which they supposed they 
had, by statute, forever protected their Seminary. 



FIFTH PARTICULAR COMPLAINT. 

We have now presented evidence and arguments in proof of 
the first, second, and third particular complaints under our fourth 
general charge. For lack of time we pass the fourth particular 
complaint without argument. Our fifth specific charge is, that 
Professor Egbert C. Smyth maintains and inculcates, contrary to 
the declarations of the Creed and to the Constitution and Statutes 
of the Seminary, "that no man can be lost without having had 
knowledge of Christ." 

In proof of this charge we present a concise statement from 
"Progressive Orthodoxy" (p. 250), the language of which is 
almost identical with that of the charge itself. The statement is 
this : — 

But we have endeavored to show that no one can be lost without hav- 
ing had knowledge of Christ. 

The statement is, it should be noted, that " no one" that is, no 
member of the human race, " can be lost" or is in the least pos- 
sible danger of being lost, " without having had knowledge of 
Christ." 

The Creed Statement. 

But in subscribing to the Creed of the Seminary this same de- 
fendant professor has repeatedly declared, without qualification, 
that he accepts the following statement of faith, and has explic- 
itly promised that he will maintain and inculcate the same, 
namely : — 

that by nature every man is personally depraved, destitute of holi- 
ness, unlike and opposed to God; and that, previously to the renewing 
agency of the Divine Spirit, all his moral actions are adverse to the 
character and glory of God ; that, being morally incapable of recover- 
ing the image of his Creator, which was lost in Adam, every man is 
justly exposed to eternal damnation; so that, except a man be born 
again, he cannot see the kingdom of God. [Italics ours.] 

188 



Fifth Particular Complaint. 189 

The substance of this creed-statement is this : that every man 
is such in his personal, moral character and actions, in his per- 
sonal relations to God, and in his personal, moral incapacity to 
recover the image of his Maker, that he is justly exposed to eter- 
nal condemnation, which certainly implies that he is in imminent 
danger of being forever lost, — "so that except a man be born 
again he cannot see the kingdom of God," which also clearly 
implies that he is in danger of being forever excluded from the 
kingdom of heaven. 

The Defendant Contradicts Himself. 

Now will the Board of Visitors please notice that Professor 
Smyth, in taking the Creed, explicitly asserts that, in his belief, 
every unregenerate man — every such man, then, with or without 
knowledge of Christ — is such in his personal character and rela- 
tion to God that he is justly in extreme peril of being lost. 
Moreover, he promises to teach that belief. But in his actual 
teaching in " Progressive Orthodoxy," he asserts with equal ex- 
plicitness that as the result of his investigations he is compelled 
to believe and to show that no man, without having had knowl- 
edge of Christ, is in the least possible danger of being lost. Now 
no professor can make both of these assertions without self-stul- 
tification. Each of these beliefs avowed by the defendant is an 
absolute contradiction of the other. 

An Astonishing Statement. 

Again, this statement of "Progressive Orthodoxy," that " no 
one can be lost without having had knowledge of Christ," is not 
only repugnant to the Andover Creed, but is itself a most aston- 
ishing statement. It offers a bribe to men to live and to die in 
ignorance of Christ. If men having no knowledge of Christ 
cannot be lost, it is perfectly safe for such men to die in their 
sins. They are sinners, indeed, but the maintenance of their 
ignorance of the Lord Jesus is the price at which they are in- 
sured against the loss of their souls. If a more monstrous doc- 
trine than this was ever taught professedly in the name of Christ 
on this globe, we have never heard of it. Yet this doctrine is 
now taught on Andover Hill, and from that once sacred height is 
proclaimed to the world. 



190 Fifth Particular Complaint. 

The Reply of the Defendant. 

What has Professor Smyth to say in refutation of this fifth 
charge? Next to nothing. His first answer to the charge con- 
tained only three sentences, and in his long and elaborate defence 
made at his public trial before the Visitors, upon reaching this 
fifth charge, he simply referred to his first answer. We do not 
blame the professor for feeling — to use an Hibernianism — that 
such a charge, sustained by such evidence of its truth, is best 
handled by not touching it. Still, such a quick dropping of a 
charge so momentous and crushing awakens the suspicion that, 
in the defendant's view, it cannot be refuted. His answer of 
three sentences is as follows : — 

I repeat that I hold that all men being sinners are lost without Christ. 
The language cited refers to what we may infer from our knowledge of 
the revelation which God has made of himself in Jesus Christ the Re- 
deemer of mankind. I deny that the citations when interpreted by the 
context and the book teach any thing contrary to the Creed and Statutes 
of the Seminary. 

Such is the only answer that has been made in refutation of 
one of the gravest charges that could be brought against a Chris- 
tian professor pledged to teach evangelical faith. In the first 
sentence of this answer the defendant says: "I hold that all 
men, being sinners, are lost without Christ." But what does he 
mean by the phrase " without Christ"? Does he mean without 
Christ in existence? Is his statement this, that all men, being 
sinners, are lost if there be no Saviour? If so, the statement is 
quite obviously true, but is not at all pertinent as a reply to the 
fifth charge, or as an explanation of his own declaration, that 
" no one can be lost without having had knowledge of Christ." 
Indeed, it makes that declaration absolutely needless and absurd. 

The third sentence in the professor's answer is simply a denial 
that the citations made by the complainants, "when interpreted 
by the context and the book, teach any thing contrary to the 
Creed and Statutes of the Seminary." But if the astounding 
declaration that " no one can be lost without having had knowl- 
edge of Christ " can possibly be so interpreted by the context, or 
by the book, or in any other way, as to show that it is not in 
absolute antagonism to that part of the Creed which we have 



Fifth Particular Complaint. 191 

quoted, why did not the professor give that interpretation, and 
so explain and justify, to the dismay of the complainants, his 
seemingly monstrous statement? In the circumstances, the fact 
that he did not give any such interpretation awakens the convic- 
tion that he could not do it. 

A Declaration without Meaning. 

In the second sentence of the professor's brief answer, he says, 
referring to the complainant's citations from " Progressive Ortho- 
doxy":— 

The language cited refers to what we may infer from our knowledge 
of the revelation which God has made of himself in Jesus Christ the 
Redeemer of mankind. 

This is a high-sounding sentence. On the face of it, it gives evi- 
dence of being the result of a desperate struggle of the writer to 
appear to be saying something vast and deep, while saying 
nothing. He represents that "the language cited" from "Pro- 
gressive Orthodoxy" is a reference to an inference, which we may 
draw from some sort of knowledge of our own respecting some 
hind of a revelation " which God has made of himself in Jesus 
Christ the Redeemer of mankind." But what does a progressive 
divine mean by the phrase "Redeemer of mankind"? What 
"revelation" does he refer to? God has made many revelations 
of himself in Jesus Christ; but what is " the revelation" of him- 
self to which the professor refers? What is "our knowledge" 
of that undesignated revelation ? What is the inference which we 
may draw from an undefined knowledge of an undesignated reve- 
lation? What is the purpose and the value of a reference to an 
unknown inference, which we may draw from an undefined knowl- 
edge of some undesignated revelation which God has made of 
himself in Jesus Christ? Until answers to these questions are 
given or guessed, that high-sounding sentence which we have 
quoted conveys no intelligible idea to even the most intelligent 
minds. 

We as complainants wish to be perfectly just in our dealings 
with these progressive professors. If the Board of Visitors, in 
fidelity to the great financial and religious trust which they are 
bound to protect, shall be obliged to inflict any penalty upon 



192 Fifth Particular Complaint. 

these professors, we would have them err, if err they must, on 
the side of patience and leniency. We would at least have the 
severity of the punishment carefully adjusted to the magnitude 
of the offence. But we say deliberately, that when any professor 
in Andover Seminary is found capable of committing the crime 
of writing such a sentence as this second sentence upon which we 
are commenting, he should forthwith be removed from office in 
accordance with the imperative Associate Statute (Art. XX) for 
such cases made and provided, which requires that the Visitors 
shall 

take care that the duties of every Professor on this Foundation be 
intelligibly . . . discharged. 

" Knowledge of Christ" a Mystical Phrase. 

Returning now to the assertion of the defendent, that " no one 
can be lost without having had knowledge of Christ," and 
remembering its inevitable implication, that it is safe for all men, 
ivho have had no knowledge of Christ, to die in their sins, we 
raise again the question, What is meant by the phrase, "having 
knowledge of Christ "? This phrase is very familiar to all readers 
of the writings of James Relly and John Murray, and of "Pro- 
gressive Orthodoxy." It appears, on the face of it, to be a very 
simple and innocent phrase. It gives no suggestion of the use 
which is made of it by pantheistic or Rellyan Universalists. 
Still no one who has even a casual acquaintance with the writings 
of that class of progressives, who are progressing backward 
toward old pagan beliefs and philosophies, can possibly mistake 
the unusual and covert meaning which such progressives attach 
to this familiar clause. They mean by the phrase " having 
knowledge of Christ," having, not a general knowledge of Him 
as He is set forth in the Scriptures, nor having that saving knowl- 
edge of Him which comes through the revelation of Him to the 
soul by the Holy Spirit, and through a grateful trust in Him for the 
forgiveness of sins, but a certain special and peculiar knowledge 
of Him, which they sometimes vaguely define by the words " a 
knowledge of Him as He is " ; that is, a knowledge of Him as He 
is in the constitution of his being, in his organic and vital union 
with the entire human race, and in his oneness with the entire 
world or universe which contains the human race. It is especially 



Fifth Particular Complaint. 193 

a knowledge of Him as including in his person all men, the wicked 
and the righteous, the living and the dead, and all who are yet to 
be born. 

If we now keep in mind this meaning of the clause, " having 
knowledge of Christ," the dark saying of the defendant, that 
" no one can be lost without having had knowledge of Christ," 
becomes luminous. If Christ is an essential part of every man's 
being, and if every man is an essential part of Christ's very per- 
son, no man can be lost — it is not possible that any man will 
be lost — before he has knowledge of Christ as a constituent part 
of his own being. That^ knowledge is his supreme need. God 
will see that he has it. Every man will have this knowledge " in 
due time," if not in this life, then in the next. There is not the 
least danger that any man will be lost without this knowledge, 
because, as every man is a part of the divine essence, and there- 
fore imperishable, no man can be lost in any event, and God will 
see that every man for his own comfort shall know this. As 
Relly and Murray used to say, perverting Scripture : — 

All thy children shall be taught of the Lord. . . . They shall all know 
me, . . . saith the Lord ; 

that is, know the Lord as a constituent part of themselves. 
And then great will be their peace, for in this knowledge of the 
Lord they will have an assurance that, irrespective of their char- 
acter as sinful or holy, they never can be lost, any more than the 
Lord Jesus can be lost, for of his person they are a constituent 
part. When a man knows Christ as He is in the constitution of 
his person, or as including in his person all men, he is at once 
convinced that he is in no danger of being lost. It would be 
greatly to his comfort to have this knowledge in this life, for then 
he would be troubled with no dread forebodings. But if he does 
not have this knowledge in the present world, he is sure to have 
it in the next world, for no man can be lost without having had 
knowledge of Christ. 

Safe for Men to Die in Their Sins. 

According to this interpretation of the professor's strange 
statement, he is simply stating what he believes will become fact. 
He is uttering a prophecy, namely, that no man will be lost before 



194 Fifth Particular Complaint. 

he knows the fact of his own vital and indestructible union with 
Jesus Christ ; and every man, knowing that marvelous fact, will 
also know that he is not, never has been, and never will be, in 
the least possible danger of being lost. This interpretation, 
which we believe to be the true one, does not make the defendant's 
statement less, but rather more, " hazardous to the souls of men." 
For if he teaches that every man is certainly to know — to know 
in knowing Christ as He is, to know in due time, in this life or in 
the next — that there is not, never has been, and never will be, the 
least possible danger that he, or any other man, will be lost, he 
surely does teach that it is perfectly safe, not for some men 
merely, but for all men, not only to die in their sins, but also to 
live on through all eternity in their sins ; inasmuch as they are all 
organically, vitally, and inseparably united to the Lord of glory 
who can never perish. 

Timidity of the Andover Progressives. 

This unscriptural doctrine, which is itself the very root and 
essence of the whole system of pantheistic Universalism, James 
Relly and John Murray, as we have shown, preached with a vigor, 
fulness, and freedom which'do not yet characterize the preaching 
and teaching of the progressive divines at Andover. The latter 
by implication do teach this doctrine — they teach it in teaching 
that all men are organically and vitally united to Christ Jesus. 
But they teach it timidly and haltingly, using much blind and 
enigmatical language. It has been their policy to " let out their 
new theology little by little." The reason of this is perfectly 
obvious to all who know anything of the theological revolution 
which has been inaugurated at Andover. Relly and Murray were 
unschooled men, but usually they had the courage of their convic- 
tions, and having accepted the fundamental principle of the vital 
union and real identity of all men with Christ, they reasoned from 
it with a resistless logic, and manfully accepted and preached all 
its legitimate implications. The progressives at Andover have 
made public announcement that they have unalterably committed 
themselves to the germinant principle of Rellyanism (though 
never designating it by that name), and they propose to " follow 
its guidance faithfully and loyally," and whithersoever it may lead. 
But they have not the courage of their convictions. They do not 



Fifth Particular Complaint. 195 

follow fearlessly their guiding principle, nor do they allow any 
bold and vigorous logic to carry them whither it will. They back 
and fill. They start swiftly out upon a course, but quickly return 
upon it. Their action is that of men who are tethered. Their 
tether is not long and they have been struggling with but poor 
success to lengthen it. If they had the vigor and manliness to 
break their tether and separate themselves entirely from the Semi- 
nary and the funds which they are now perverting, and could 
they attain the courage of their convictions, and reason with a 
bold, scholarly, and manly logic, they could and would soon be 
openly preaching and honestly teaching pantheistic Universalism 
with all the fulness, clearness, and freedom with which Relly and 
Murray preached it. But so long as they remain tethered by a 
promise which they can rightfully withdraw, and by a contract 
which they are free to surrender at any moment, they will con- 
tinue to make the sorry spectacle of themselves which they are 
now making in promising to teach one theology and yet timidly 
and haltingly teaching an opposing theology. 

Moral and Religious Results. 

If permitted to do so, these professors will doubtless in the 
future maintain and inculcate, as they are now doing, the germi- 
nant and dominating principle of Rellyanism with a few of its 
implications, while leaving the more extreme and inevitable de- 
velopment of them in charge of their students. What that inevi- 
table development in morals and in faith will be is not doubtful. 
In morals it will be what it has been in the past, and what any 
one acquainted with human nature might expect would come from 
teaching, that it is safe for at least some men to die in their sins. 
In religious faith the development can hardly fail to be in the 
near future, what may have already occurred in individual cases, 
an utter abandonment of all evangelical faith, and ultimately of 
all belief in a personal God, or in any supreme Being other than 
that of the old pagan pantheists of Greece and India. As to 
the morality of the personal act of teaching such principles in 
Andover Seminary, the visitors and the world will judge. The 
influence of an example like this upon students cannot fail to be 
more or less disastrous. Some pupils, having accepted such 
views, may have enough conscience and honesty left to pay back 



196 Fifth Particular Complaint. 

all funds which they have received in charity from orthodox 
sources, and openly and promptly connect themselves with Uni- 
versalist or Unitarian churches, or perhaps abandon their purpose 
to enter the Christian ministry. Others, however, will doubtless 
follow the example of their teachers, and continue to receive sup- 
port from orthodox people and institutions, while they hold and 
teach unorthodox and pantheistic beliefs. People of ordinary 
discernment must see that all these results in a greater or less de- 
gree are sure and imminent. Indeed, even now the moral devel- 
opment is not tarrying. The religious development, also, in the 
confessed beliefs and in the preaching of students, is already 
ominous. In the meantime the excited and impatient religious 
public must be content to listen wonderingly to many a blind 
hint and dark saying like that sonorous, but enigmatical sentence 
of the defendant to which, as an example, we have called special 
attention. 



VI. 

SIXTH PARTICULAR COMPLAINT. 

Our sixth particular complaint is, that Professor Smyth holds, 
maintains, and inculcates, in opposition to the Creed and the 
Statutes of the Seminary, That the atonement of Christ consists 
essentially and chiefly in his becoming identified with the human 
race through his Incarnation, in order that, by his union with men 
He might endow them with power to repent, and thus impart to them 
an augmented value in the view of God, and so render God propi- 
tious towards them. 

The evidence and arguments by which this charge was sup- 
ported at the first trial of the defendant are in print, and are 
before your honorable Board. May we ask your careful consider- 
ation of them, and especially of the citations from " Progressive 
Orthodoxy " ? The latter will show better than any words of ours 
can, how, in this progressive theology, all conceptions of the atone- 
ment of Christ are colored, modified, and controlled by the panthe- 
istic notion of the organic and vital union of the entire human 
race with Christ. 

" Progressive Orthodoxy " says : — 

The substitution is not of Christ standing on this side for the race 
standing on that side, but the race with Christ in it is substituted for the 
race without Christ in it. This Christ in with the race is regarded by 
God as one who has those powers of instruction, sympathy, purity 
which can be imparted to his brethren. Likewise the individual in 
Christ takes the place of the individual without Christ, is looked on as 
one whom Christ can bring to repentance and obedience, and so is justi- 
fied even before faith develops into character. . . . 

The race is reconstituted in Christ, and is other in the sight of God, 
because different in fact, because containing powers for repentance and 
holiness which, without Christ, it would be hopelessly destitute of. 1 

The New Theory of Atonement. 
Such is the atonement according to "Progressive Orthodoxy." 
This theory allows of no substitution of Christ alone for the race 

l Prog. Orth. p. 56. 

197 



198 Sixth Particular Complaint. 

alone, but only a substitution of an alleged union of Christ with 
the race for the non-union of Christ with the race. Christ did 
not take the place of a sinning, guilty, condemned, and lost race, 
and suffer and die in its stead, but a certain mysterious, organic, 
and vital union of Christ with the race — a union nowhere men- 
tioned, still less described, in the Scriptures — takes the place of 
Christ himself and the race not vitally united the one with the 
other. God looks favorably upon both Christ and the race thus 
united, in other words is propitiated, not on the ground that 
Christ has suffered and died in the place of a guilty and con- 
demned race, but on the ground that Christ has "powers of 
instruction, sympathy, purity which can be imparted to his 
brethren," that is, to all members of the human race. What 
these powers of instruction, sympathy, purity are, that they can 
be imparted to, or poured into all men, from Adam to the 
last member of the race, through the channel of their vital 
union with Christ, without and previous to any repentance or 
faith on their own part, and why all members of the race, as 
they are all thus united to Christ, do not give full and grand 
exhibitions of these Christ-given and Christlike powers of in- 
struction, sympathy, and purity, we are not told. This silence is 
remarkable. 

We are further instructed, that " the individual in Christ," — 
that is, every human being who ever has lived, or ever will live, 
— as he "takes the place of the individual without Christ," is 
regarded by God "as one whom Christ can bring to repentance 
and obedience, and so is justified even before faith develops into 
character." But if Christ is united to every individual member 
of the race, and in that union can bring every individual to re- 
pentance, faith, and obedience, then surely Christ is to blame if 
every member of the race is not penitent, believing, and obedient, 
and is not justified and saved. In other words, if this theory of 
the atonement be true, Christ himself can be justified only by the 
universal righteousness and salvation of men. If Christ exists 
in such a personal, vital, and power-imparting relation to every 
man, then every man ought to be at this moment, and from his 
birth, and forever, a righteous, justified, and saved man. If every 
man is not a saint, then " Progressive Orthodoxy," by fair impli- 
cation, defames our Lord. 



Sixth Particular Complaint. 199 

This theory of the atoning union of Christ with all men is 
finally set forth in these words : — 

The Race in Christ on the Cross. 

In the atonement Christ the Son of man brings all humanity to God. 
No member of the race is separate from him who thus offers himself. 1 

But if Christ brings all humanity to God, how can any part of 
humanity be lost? What can be meant by bringing all men to 
God, if it be not meant that all men are brought into eternal 
peace with God? If no member of the human race was separate 
from Christ when He offered himself up in atonement, then every 
man was with Christ and in Him when He suffered upon the 
cross ; and with and in Him took part in making a complete and 
acceptable atonement for his own sins. Indeed, these progressive 
divines affirm that : — 

When Christ suffers, the race suffers. When Christ is sorrowful, the 
race is sorrowful. 2 

Universalism. 

But if all men have sorrowed in Christ's great sorrow for the 
sins of the world, they have 'offered to God, according to this 
theory of atonement, a perfect repentance. And when all men 
have offered to God a perfect repentance in Christ's sorrows, and, 
having been with and in Christ on the cross, have made a full 
and acceptable atonement for their own sins, how can any man be 
lost? Thus " Progressive Orthodoxy," as set forth in its doc- 
trines of repentance and atonement, is thoroughgoing Univer- 
salism, which is one of the specified errors that the defendant 
has repeatedly promised to oppose. 

The " Central and Vital Principle." 

Yet the defendant may claim that he can turn over the leaves 
of " Progressive Orthodoxy," and quote here and there a passage 
which contradicts this theory of the atonement. But what of it? 
"Progressive Orthodoxy" abounds in inconsistencies and self- 
contradictions. We do not admit, however, that, from the book 
as a whole, it can be proved that we are mistaken in our charge 

1 Prog. Orth. p. 66. 2 Ibid. p. 53. 



200 Sixth Particular Complaint. 

that its doctrine of atonement is rank Universalism. But if the 
professor can quote isolated passages, which plainly contradict 
those which we have cited, we reply with the question, What if 
he can? He only proves that he and his progressive associates 
are holding and teaching two conflicting theories of the atone- 
ment. The question then will be, Which of these two discordant 
theories do they intend to accept, maintain, and inculcate? It is 
certainly fair to accept their own answer to this question. They 
have already given us their answer in unmistakable language. 
In the Introduction to "Progressive Orthodoxy," pp. 3, 4, they 
inform us that their decision is made beyond recall ; that in writ- 
ing this book they have been "under the guidance of a central 
and vital principle of Christianity, namely, the reality of Christ's 
personal relation to the human race as a whole, and to every 
member of it," which central and vital principle further On in 
the book proves to be the organic and vital union of Christ with 
every member of the human race. To the maintenance of this 
principle they have once for all committed themselves. In proof 
of the truth of this speculation, which they have made the funda- 
mental doctrine of their whole system, or rather jumble, of theo- 
logical beliefs, they have not given one particle of evidence. 
They do, indeed, dogmatically assert that their speculative notion 
of the vital union of Christ with the race is " a central and 
vital principle of Christianity " ; but dogmatism is not evidence. 
They also dogmatically assert that "this principle," as they call 
it, " is involved in the church doctrine of the constitution of 
Christ's person," and that "it is a necessary implication of our 
fathers' faith in the extent and intent of the Atonement." But 
again we reply, that dogmatic assertion is not evidence. These 
progressive divines also assert that this pantheistic principle, as 
we call it, of the organic and vital union of the entire human 
race with Christ our Lord "is an indisputable teaching of 
Scripture " ; but they do not cite a single passage of Scripture in 
proof of this astounding statement. It behooved them, at the 
very opening of their book, to establish beyond all question the 
truth of this vital and all-pervading principle of their " new the- 
ology," unless they were willing that their book should be a laugh- 
ing-stock in the world of scholars. But they did nothing of the 
kind. On the contrary, at the opening of their volume, referring 



Sixth Particular Complaint. 201 

to this mere speculation, the truth of which they had not estab- 
lished by the least particle of evidence, they unblushingly declare : 

We have sought to apply this principle to the solution of questions 
which are now more than ever before engaging the attention of serious 
and devout minds. "We have endeavored to follow its guidance faith- 
fully and loyally, and whithersoever it might lead. We have trusted it 
wholly and practically. 1 

Now this language of the defendant and of his progressive 
associates — whatever we may think of the morality or the scholar- 
ship manifested in committing themselves wholly and irrevocably 
to the guidance of an utterly unestablished principle — shows that 
they have thus committed themselves to the acceptance, main- 
tenance, and inculcation of an unproved dogmatic principle, under 
the guidance of which they are compelled to hold and teach a 
theory of the atonement which is itself outright Universalism. 
The more passages they can find in "Progressive Orthodoxy" 
which contradict this theory, the worse for them. They will thus 
simply show that for some reason they are not able to stand faith- 
fully and loyally by their own avowed "principle." It is right for 
us, however, to hold them responsible for the fundamental and 
dominating "principle" which they last avowed, and for all 
doctrines which they themselves have deduced from it, whether 
they have contradicted that principle or not. If, however, they 
have contradicted their own avowed, fundamental, and guiding- 
principle, it is an ominous reflection upon their scholarship, or if 
not upon that, then upon their courage. 

We have already shown conclusively, we submit to the Board 
of Visitors, that the defendant is holding and teaching, not only 
a monstrous and unproved theory of atonement, but also a theory 
which is itself with its unavoidable implications real Universal- 
ism. To teach that all members of the human race are in such 
vital and indestructible union with Christ, that they were all — 
from Adam to the last man who shall ever be born — with and in 
Him when He hung upon the cross, and thus actually made full 
and adequate atonement for all their own sins — to teach this 
monstrous notion is to teach absolute Universalism. But the 
teaching of Universalism is most clearly and emphatically for- 
bidden by the Statutes of the Seminary. 

1 Prog. Orth. p. 3. 



202 Sixth Particular Complaint, 

We might here close our argument in proof of our sixth partic- 
ular charge. But the defendant in the first exceedingly brief 
reply which he made to this grave charge, referring to our cita- 
tions, and to the Article in " Progressive Orthodoxy " from which 
they were made, said : — 

I deny that the citations or the Article contain, either by negation or 
affirmation, any thing contrary to the Creed or the Statutes. 

We cannot allow this categorical denial to pass unnoticed. 

We propose, therefore, to present in the next place, in contrast 
with the theory of atonement defended in " Progressive Ortho- 
doxy," that doctrine of the atonement which the Statutes of the 
Seminary require should be taught on the Andover Foundations. 

The Doctrine of Atonement Required by Statute. 

Every professor in Andover Seminary, in taking the Creed, has 
made this confession of faith respecting the atonement : — 

I believe, . . . that God, of his mere good pleasure, from all eternity 
elected some to everlasting life, and that he entered into a covenant of 
grace, to deliver them out of this state of misery by a Redeemer ; that 
the only Redeemer of the elect is the eternal Son of God, who for this 
purpose became man, and continues to be God and man in two distinct 
natures and one person forever ; that Christ, as our Redeemer, executeth 
the office of Prophet, Priest and King; that, agreeably to the covenant 
of redemption, the Son of God, and he alone, by his sufferings and death, 
has made atonement for the sins of all men ; that repentance, faith and 
holiness are the personal requisites in the Gospel scheme of salvation ; 
that the righteousness of Christ is the only ground of a sinner's justifi- 
cation, that this righteousness is received through faith; and that this 
faith is the gift of God ; so that our salvation is wholly of grace. 

This passage, quoted from the Seminary Creed, contains a 
statement of that doctrine of atonement which every professor in 
Andover Seminary has promised, over his own signature, and on 
his honor as a gentleman and a Christian, to " maintain and 
inculcate." The Creed is a Statute of the Seminary. It is 
Article I of the "Additional Statutes ," so called. It is also con- 
tained in Article II of "The Statutes of The Associate Founda- 
tion in The Theological Institution in Andover." But the Creed is 
not the whole of this Article II. The same Article contains also 
this positive requirement : — 



Sixth Particular Complaint. 203 

Every Professor on the Associate Foundation . . . shall sustain the 
character of a discreet, honest, learned and devout Christian ; an ortho- 
dox and consistent Calvinist. 

The defendant, Professor Egbert C. Smyth, is on the " Asso- 
ciate Found ation." 

What now are the contents of that doctrine of Atonement 
which every professor in Andover Seminary is under the most 
imperative obligations to maintain and inculcate (so far as may 
appertain to his office) , and which he cannot even fail to maintain 
and inculcate (so far as may appertain to his office) — to say 
nothing of his contradicting and opposing it — without breaking 
his own promise made voluntarily, and with prayer to God for his 
aid and blessing, and thus forfeiting the character of an " honest 
Christian" and of "an orthodox, consistent Calvinist"? 

Moreover, what, in contrast with this Andover doctrine of 
Atonement, are the contents of that theory of Atonement which 
is set forth in "Progressive Orthodoxy," and which is now held 
and taught by the defendant and his progressive associates on 
the Andover Foundations ? 

The Creed-Doctrine, and the New Theory of Atonement, 
Contrasted. 

1. According to the Seminary Creed and Consistent Calvinism, 
" the Son of God, and He alone, by his sufferings and death, has 
made atonement for the sins of all men." The Creed also de- 
clares, " that the only Redeemer of the elect is the eternal Son of 
God." 

Now if these Creed statements mean anything, they mean what 
they say. Their plain import is, that the Son of God alone made 
the atonement. He was the sole being who hung upon the cross 
in sacrifice for the sins of the world. The distinct avowal of the 
fact of the solitariness of Christ while accomplishing his atoning 
work cannot be gotten out of these Creed statements. No honest 
interpretation of them, which contradicts their positive assertion 
of the absolute aloneness of the Son of God in making the atone- 
ment, is possible. If there is any such interpretation, we chal- 
lenge the defendant and all his progressive associates to state 
what it is. 



204 Sixth Particular Complaint. 

But this doctrine of the Creed " Progressive Orthodoxy" con- 
tradicts. Its language is : — 

When Christ suffers, the race suffers. . . . Thus we can regard Him as 
our substitute, not because He stands apart, not because He is one and 
the race another, but because He is so identified with us. . . , l 

"No member of the race is separate from him who thus offers himself. 2 

These statements, and many others like them, we submit, are 
in absolute and irreconcilable conflict with the Seminary Creed 
and the belief of all Consistent Calvinists. They are so many 
positive assertions that the Son of God was not alone in making 
the atonement. If no man was separate from Christ when he 
was offered in sacrifice on the cross for the sins of the world, 
then all men were with Him and in Him on the cross, and took 
part with Him in making atonement for their own sins and in 
redeeming themselves from the curse of the law. Christ, there- 
fore, is not the " only Redeemer." Every man is as truly a 
redeemer of at least one condemned and lost soul as is the Son of 
God himself. 

Such teaching, though utterly irreconcilable with the Creed and 
with Consistent Calvinism, is yet in perfect accord with "the 
central and vital principle" of "Progressive Orthodoxy." In- 
deed, it is the inevitable outcome of that principle. The pan- 
theistic notion that the constitution of Christ's Person is such 
that He is in organic and vital union with the race as a whole and 
with every member of it leads inevitably to tbe absurd belief 
that all men, from Adam to the last man who shall be born, actu- 
ally suffered and died on Calvary, and so with and in Christ made 
full and acceptable atonement for all their sins. Thus this " prin- 
ciple," as the Andover progressives term it, paganizes and cor- 
rupts the Christian doctrine of atonement as it does every other 
Scriptural revelation to which it is applied. 

The Creed-Doctrine of Vicarious Atonement. 

2. It is the doctrine of both the Andover Creed and of Con- 
sistent Calvinism, that Christ, in his sufferings and death, became 
our substitute, and our only substitute, in the sense that He took 
our place before the holy law of God which we have broken, and 

i Prog. Orth. p. 53. 2 Ibid. p. 66. 



Sixth Particular Complaint. 205 

there alone suffered and died for us and in our stead. The atone- 
ment which the Son of God, and He alone, made was a vicarious 
atonement. The Creed says that " the Son of God, and He 
alone, by his sufferings and death, has made atonement for the 
sins of all men." All men are sinners and as such are guilty, 
condemned, and exposed to eternal death for their own sins. 
Christ in suffering and dying for their sins took their place, be- 
came their substitute, and freely offered his own sufferings and 
death in the place of the death eternal which God threatens and 
which all sinners deserve. All this our Redeemer did in order to 
make it possible for God, in perfect consistency with his own 
righteousness and his holy law, to save all men who should repent 
of their sins, and believe in God, or in God as revealed in the 
Lord Jesus Christ. This is not simply our interpretation of the 
Creed. It is the doctrine of the Creed as interpreted by the 
kLown belief of its authors. It is an established legal principle 
that the known belief of the writer or writers of such a docu- 
ment furnishes the true and legal interpretation of it. The 
writers of the Andover Creed, we repeat, were Hopkinsians, and 
called themselves " Consistent Calvinists." Theirs was the most 
definite, positive, and clean-cut system of theology then in exist- 
ence. Every theologian knows, or may know, just what it is. 
Dr. Samuel Hopkins himself defined the vicarious atonement of 
Christ in these words : — 

When it is said, " Christ died for our sins," the meaning must be 
that his death is the atonement and propitiation for sin; and that 
by it he suffered the evil with which sin is threatened in the law, or 
the penalty and curse of the law, or that which is equivalent. To 
suffer for sin, and for the sinner, is so far to take the place of the 
sinner, as to suffer the evil which he deserves, and which otherwise 
the sinner must have suffered. Or, which is the same, the sufferings 
of Christ answer the same end with respect to the law and divine 
government, that otherwise must be answered by the eternal destruc- 
tion of the sinner. 1 

Such was the belief not only of Dr. Hopkins, but of all Con- 
sistent Calvinists, and in particular of Drs. Spring, Woods, and 
Emmons, who were the writers in chief of the Andover Creed. 
Professors Moses Stuart and Edwards A. Park held and taught 

1 Hopkins's Works, vol. i, pp. 327, 328. 



206 Sixth Particular Complaint. 

the same belief respecting the atonement. Professor Stuart 
wrote : — 

When I say Christ in his sufferings was our substitute, or, by them he 
made an expiatory offering for us, I mean that God did appoint 

AND ACCEPT THE SUFFERINGS OF CHRIST, INSTEAD OF INFLICTING THE 
PUNISHMENT DUE TO US AS SINNERS AGAINST HIS LAW; and that in 

consequence of this appointment and of these sufferings, he does forgive our 
sins and receive us to his favor. 1 

Dr. Park, referring specifically to the Andover Creed, writes : 

In the most moderate interpretation of its words, as explained by its 
framers, it requires a belief in the following principles: "The God- 
man is our priest, our royal priest, our royal prophet-priest. In this 
royal priestly office he offers the sacrifice for sin. This sacrifice, in 
its very nature, involves the idea of his death and sufferings, all of 
which represent the legal penalty for sin, and are, for the purposes of 
moral government, of equal avail with that penalty. The pains and 
death of the Lamb of God were designed to vindicate the honor of God's 
law, and of his retributive justice, as much as it would have been vindi- 
cated by inflicting the legal penalty on the penitent : this is the nature 
of his sacrifice. Our High Priest's righteousness, i. e., ' his obedience 
unto death,' is the only ground on which sinners can be justified; 
and their faith which receives and rests upon this ' obedience unto 
death,' is the only condition on which they can be justified ; and these 
two facts explain the very nature of the atoning sacrifice. . . . Agree- 
ably to the arrangement called the covenant of redemption, the Re- 
deemer made the atonement for all men : agreeably to the arrangement 
called the covenant of grace, the Sovereign of the Universe determined 
from all eternity, on the ground of this atonement, to regenerate and 
pardon some men : accordingly, Christ suffered and died for the whole 
race, but is the actual and the only Redeemer of a part of the race." 2 

The defendant, Professor E. C. Smyth, in his defence before 
the Visitors, asked the complainants, in the tone of a jeer, if 
they would " please to point out what is the theory of the Atone- 
ment made binding in the Creed as a condition of a trust? 
Where is it found, and how it is expressed?" 3 If the Professor 
does not know what the doctrine of the Atonement is, which is 
required by the Statutes and Creed of Andover Seminary, to be 
maintained and taught on the Andover Foundations, why has he 
so many times subscribed to the Creed? If he did not know 

1 Stuart's Miscellanies, pp. 222, 223. 2 The Associate Creed of Andover Theological 
Seminary, by Edwards A. Park, p. 35. 3 The Andover Defence, p. 120. 



Sixth Particular Complaint. 207 

what he was required by the Statutes to teach respecting the 
chief doctrine of Christianity, why has he so many times said in 
solemn promise before the Trustees : " I will religiously conform 
to the Constitution and Laws of this Seminary, and to the Stat- 
utes of this Foundation " ? Did he, or did he not, in addressing 
those requests for information to the complainants, publicly con- 
fess that he is the kind of man who can subscribe to such a decla- 
ration of faith, not knowing what the faith is which he declares he 
accepts and will teach ; and that he is the kind of man who can 
religiously make a solemn promise to conform to certain Statutes, 
not knowing what he promises to do ? 

However the Professor may answer these questions, we have no 
objection to respond to his request for information by saying that 
the doctrine — not " the theory" — of atonement, the maintaining 
and inculcating of which is k ' made binding in the Creed as a 
condition of a trust," and a condition of his holding his chair on 
the Associate Foundation, he will find, first, in the Creed itself ; 
secondly, in that part of Article II of the Associate Statutes 
which requires every professor to be " an orthodox and consistent 
Calvinist"; and thirdly, in the exhaustive and incomparable 
Treatise on "The Associate Creed of Andover Theological Sem- 
inary. By Edwards A. Park." If now the defendant, in reply, 
affirms that this requirement of the Statute, that every professor 
shall be a" consistent Calvinist," is indefinite, and points to no 
particular doctrine of atonement, we deny his statement. Every 
intelligent theologian who has made even a cursory examination 
of what the Founders called " Consistent Calvinism," knows that 
this statutory requirement does point to a most definite and clearly 
defined doctrine of atonement ; a doctrine, too, which is, as we 
shall show, in irreconcilable antagonism to the theory of atonement 
which is now held and taught by the defendant and his progressive 
associates in Andover Seminary, in violation of a most sacred 
trust and promise. 

The Opposing Theory of Vicarious Atonement. 

3. " Progressive Orthodoxy" teaches that the vicariousness of 
the atonement consists in this, that " the individual in Christ takes 
the place of the individual without Christ." The statement in this 
quotation is not, that Christ takes the place of the individual, 



208 Sixth Particular Complaint, 

but that the individual in Christ takes the place of the indi- 
vidual; for "the individual without Christ" is simply the indi- 
vidual. It is the doctrine of the Creed that Christ takes the place 
of, and dies for, the individual. It is the teaching of "Pro- 
gressive Orthodoxy " that Christ alone does not do this, but that 
the individual sinner in Christ takes the place of himself and 
suffers aud dies as a substitute for himself. Can such an absurd- 
ity be reconciled with the sublime doctrine of Christ's vicarious 
atonement as set forth in the Andover Creed and in Consistent 
Calvinism ? 

It should also be noticed that, according to this view of the 
vicariousness of the atonement, it was absolutely necessary that 
"the individual" — that is, every human being — should have 
been " in Christ" before our Lord suffered on the cross, else how 
could every individual have suffered and died with Him in atone- 
ment for himself? Adam aud his every descendant, to the last 
person who shall be born, including the most wicked men who 
ever have, or ever will, live, all must have been " in Christ" pre- 
vious to his death ; for if a single individual member of the race 
was not " in Christ " previous to his death, that person, according 
to the theory, did not have, and never can have, any share in the 
vicarious atonement made on Calvary. According to this marvel- 
ous theology, termed by its advocates "Advanced Thought," 
" Progressive Orthodoxy," and so on, no man's sins have been, 
or ever can be, atoned for, save as he was individually "in 
Christ " previous to his sacrifice on the cross, took part in Christ's 
sufferings and death, and so became a substitute for himself, and 
made atonement for his own sins. But if each and every member 
of the race was " in Christ " previous to his sacrifice on Calvary, 
how long had they been in Him ? Was each man from the date of 
his birth only "in Christ"? If so, how about those who were 
born after Christ's atoning death? Was each man "in Christ" 
only from the date of the Incarnation? If so, how about all the 
people who lived in the ages preceding the Incarnation ? Were 
they saved, if saved at all, without union with Christ, and so 
without repentance? Were all members of the race " in Christ" 
from all eternity? If so, how can they be in any need of atone- 
ment ? If the human race is a constituent part of the very being 
of the Son of God, the race is in the Son from everlasting to 



Sixth Particular Complaint. 209 

everlasting, and no member of the race can be lost any more than 
the Son of God can be lost. 

Again, according to the theory, " the individual in Christ takes 
the place of the individual without Christ." But we repeat the 
question, when was "the individual without Christ"? " Pro- 
gressive Orthodoxy" teaches that Christ's "universe is not 
attached to Him externally, but vitally. He is not a governor set 
over it, but is its life everywhere." Of course, then, He is the 
life of every man. He is not the Creator of life as something 
other than Himself, He is the life of every man. The con- 
stitution of Christ's person is such that all men are organically 
and vitally united to Him, if not from all eternity, yet at 
least from the first moment of their existence. Then no man 
was ever out of Christ, and that " the individual in Christ" should 
take the place of " the individual without Christ" is an utter im- 
possibility. The " individual without Christ" is a nonentity, and 
no man in Christ can be substituted — in the theological sense of 
substitution — for a nonentity, to say nothing of the absurdity of 
a man substituting himself for himself. Thus this sonorous and 
pretentious theory of an atonement made by the substitution of 
the race and the individual in Christ for the race and the individ- 
ual without Christ vanishes into nothing. According to " Pro- 
gressive Orthodoxy " itself, there is not now, and never has been, 
any such thing in existence as a human race or an individual 
without Christ. This theory of vicarious atonement is self- 
destructive. It has in it the seed of its own death. 

God Not Reconciled to Impenitent Sinners. 

4. It is a cardinal doctrine of Consistent Calvinism and of the 
Andover Creed, as well as of the Holy Scriptures, that God is 
never, by any mediation or atonement, or by any other means, 
propitiated or reconciled to impenitent and unbelieving sinners, 
but that "repentance, faith, and holiness are personal requisites 
in the Gospel scheme of salvation " ; that is, there is nothing in 
the vicarious atonement of Christ that reconciles God to, and actu- 
ally saves, any sinner before he personally fulfils certain condi- 
tions. When one man becomes reconciled to another who has 
become his enemy and has wronged him, he forgives him. It is 
inconceivable that any man should be reconciled to an enemy who 



210 Sixth Particular Complaint. 

has wronged him, and at the same time not forgive him, saying to 
him, "I am perfectly reconciled to you; it is all right between 
us ; but I have not forgiven you, and never will forgive you." 
In such a case the wronged man is not reconciled. Forgiveness 
is the very heart of reconciliation. If there is no forgiveness, 
there is no reconciliation. So when God has become reconciled 
to a sinner He has forgiven him. If He has not forgiven him, 
He is unreconciled to him. The divine reconciliation and forgive- 
ness go together. But a sinner forgiven of God is a sinner 
saved. Yet God cannot righteously become reconciled to, for- 
give, and save impenitent and persistent sinners. He cannot for- 
give and save the wicked in their wickedness. If he becomes 
reconciled to sinners in their sins, He becomes reconciled to sin, 
and ceases to be holy Himself. According to the Andover Creed, 
tbe atonement is not a means of propitiating and reconciling God 
to impenitent and unbelieving sinners, but "repentance, faith 
and holiness are personal requisites" which must be personally 
fulfilled by the sinner before God is reconciled to him, forgives, 
and saves him ; and the atonement of Christ makes it possible for 
God, in perfect consistency with his own righteousness, with his 
own stainless justice and holy law, to be reconciled to, and to 
forgive and save, penitent and trusting sinners. 

Now we do not present this view as our opinion, or our belief, 
even though it is our belief ; but we submit to the Visitors that this 
is exactly the doctrine of the Andover Creed, and the well-known 
doctrine of Consistent Calvinism, which Creed and Calvinism the 
defendant and all his progressive compeers have solemnly declared 
that they believe, and have religiously promised to teach. 

The Progressives' Theory of Divine Reconciliation. 

Now what is the doctrine which they are actually maintaining 
and teaching in their " Progressive Orthodoxy " ? It is this : that 
God is reconciled to impenitent and unbelieving and persistent 
sinners ; that He does forgive and save sinners in their sins, before 
ever they repent, trust in and obey God. "Progressive Ortho- 
doxy " says : — 

Because God is reconciled in Jesus Christ man repents and begins a 
new life. The gospel never reverses this order of dependence. 1 

i pp. 46, 47. 



Sixth Particular Complaint. 211 

Professor George Harris, — who ought to know what " Progress- 
ive Orthodoxy" teaches, — in his defence at his trial before the 
Visitors, made this remarkable affirmation : — 

The fundamental position is that because God is reconciled to man, 
therefore man is forgiven, rather than that God forgives by reason of 
any thing that man does. First God is reconciled, then man repents. 
Not first man repents, and then God is reconciled. 1 

"Progressive Orthodoxy" is Universalism. 

The positive assertion in this language is, that God is reconciled 
to sinners before they repent ; that is, is reconciled to impenitent 
sinners. But we repeat, if God is reconciled to impenitent sinners, 
He forgives impenitent sinners. And an impenitent sinner for- 
given of God is a sinner saved in his sins. In this case, there are 
no "personal requisites in the gospel scheme of salvation." "Per- 
sonal repentance, faith and holiness " are not necessary to the 
salvation of any sinner. Moreover, if there are no conditions to 
be fulfilled personally by sinners precedent to their forgiveness 
and salvation, and if God is reconciled to all impenitent sinners 
persisting in their sins, then He forgives and saves all sinners. 
Thus we again establish the charge which we have so often proved, 
that ' ' Progressive Orthodoxy " is absolute Universalism — a 
Universalism, moreover, according to which all men are saved, 
not from their sins, but in their sins. 

Justification by Faith. 

5. The great doctrine of justification by faith is a fundamental 
doctrine of the Andover Creed and of Consistent Calvinism. 
The Creed affirms, in connection with its statement of the doctrine 
of atonement, 

that the righteousness of Christ is the only ground of a sinner's justi- 
fication ; that this righteousness is received through faith ; and that this 
faith is the gift of God. 

According to this creed-statement, the righteousness of Christ 
is of no avail to a sinner until he receives it "through faith." 
That is, faith in Christ, or believing on Christ, is a condition to 
be fulfilled by the sinner himself, precedent to his justification. 

!The Andover Defence, p. 294. 



212 Sixth Particular Complaint. 

The teaching of the Creed is not that God first justifies the sinner, 
and then the sinner believes on Christ, and that this order is never 
reversed in the gospel ; but that first the sinner believes on Christ, 
and then is justified of God, and that this order in the gospel is 
never reversed. When a sinner believes on Christ he not only 
trusts in Him for that remission of sins which is graciously offered 
bim through Christ's atoning sacrifice, but he also trusts in Christ's 
perfect righteousness, that is, in his obedience unto death, ap- 
proves of and pleads that righteousness before God, and so is 
brought into moral and spiritual sympathy with Christ, and is 
personally united to Him in character, in righteousness. All this 
would be impossible without Christ's perfect and glorious right- 
eousness ; and therefore, on the ground of that righteousness, the 
condemned and lost sinner, through his faith in Christ, and in his 
righteousness, is accepted and justified of God. He now dwells 
in Christ by faith, and Christ dwells in his heart. He is now " in 
Christ" and Christ is "in him," not by any organic and vital 
union, but by faith. He is now one with Christ, not one in 
essence of being — that is a pagan notion, it is Pantheism — but 
one with Christ through love, sympathy, and trust, one with Him 
in purpose and righteousness. Thus the sinner through faith puts 
on Christ, receives, and is clothed in Christ's righteousness, and 
on the ground of that righteousness is justified of God. Such 
is the doctrine of the Creed. 

Justification without Faith. 

But " Progressive Orthodoxy " antagonizes this great Protestant 
and evangelical doctrine of justification by faith, by setting forth 
somewhat cautiously a theory of justification without faith, or 
previous to faith — of justification grounded, not upon Christ's 
righteousness, but upon the pantheistic notion that the entire 
human race was with and in Christ when He was offered up on the 
cross. Because of that imagined union of all men with Christ in 
his atoning sacrifice, all men are justified of God before faith. 
The progressive divines boldly affirm that God is reconciled to all 
sinners before they repent, or believe, or obey ; but, seemingly for 
prudential reasons, they are wary in setting forth their theory of 
justification without faith. Yet this theory is involved in their 
notion that God is reconciled to sinners before they repent. If 



Sixth Particular Complaint. 213 

God is reconciled to impenitent, unbelieving, and persistent sin- 
ners, He is no longer opposed to them, but is at peace with them, 
is satisfied with them, forgives and justifies them. It is impossi- 
ble that God should be reconciled to a man whom He does not 
justify. Such a reconciliation would be immoral. 

Impenitent Sinners Justified on the Ground of Their 
Eminent Value. 

The actual representation of the Andover progressives is, that all 
men are "in Christ," not by faith, but by an organic and vital 
union with Him ; and that on the ground of this union with Christ 
they have eminent value in the sight of God, are essentially 
different in fact from what they would have been without this 
union, are looked upon by God as being other than they would 
have been, as having had imparted to them, through this union, 
powers and capacities of which they would otherwise have been 
wholly destitute, and so on the ground of these betterments in the 
condition and relations of all sinners, entirely apart from any 
change in their moral character, they are more highly esteemed by 
God, and so He becomes propitious toward them, in other words 
becomes reconciled to them and justifies them in their sins ; not, 
we repeat, because they have repented, believed, and become 
obedient, for all this is beyond their power ; but because by their 
union with Christ they have attained augmented value in the 
sight of God, and have become capable of repenting, obeying, 
trusting. 1 

Such is the notion of God's justification of sinners as set forth 
in "Progressive Orthodoxy." It is a justification previous to 
faith, and therefore without faith. It is the justification of all 
sinners through their vital union with Christ. Such a notion can 
never be reconciled with the great Scriptural doctrine of justifica- 
tion by faith as stated in the Creed and as held by all Consistent 
Calvinists. The antagonism between the two beliefs is uncom- 
promising. 

" Personal Requisites." 

6. While the Andover Creed and Consistent Calvinism set forth 
the atonement of Christ as absolutely indispensable to the salva- 
tion of sinners, they also place marked emphasis upon the divine 

iProg. Orth. pp. 52, 53, 56. 



214 JSixth Particular Complaint. 

revelation that, " repentance, faith and holiness are personal 
requisites in the gospel scheme of salvation." All Consistent 
Calvinists make conspicuous in their faith and in thek preaching 
the great gospel truth, that while the atonement of Christ is suffi- 
cient for the salvation of all men, it yet never becomes efficient in 
the salvation of any man, until he repents of his sins, believes on 
Christ, and begins to be in character and life a holy man. They 
believe and preach, that God from all eternity was a loving, mer- 
ciful, and gracious God, that He " so loved the world " that He 
gave his Son to die for it ; that it was always in his disposition to 
become actually propitiated and reconciled to penitent and believ- 
ing sinners, and thus to forgive and save them, in case He could 
do this righteously, or without bringing shame upon his own char- 
acter and breaking down the authority of his holy Law. They 
also believe and preach that the atonement made in the sacrifice 
of the Incarnate Son of God, and of Him alone, did open a way 
for God, or make it possible for Him, without dishonor to his 
own character and throne, to become propitiated and reconciled 
to sinners, in other words, to forgive and save them, upon the 
condition, and only upon the condition, that they repent of their 
sins, believe on Christ, and become obedient to God. Hence 
Consistent Calvinists have always been evangelistic Christians, 
praying, preaching, and laboring for the immediate conversion of 
their fellow-men, and doing this in fulfilment of the express com- 
mand of the Lord Jesus, " that repentance and remission of sins 
should be preached in his name among all nations, beginning at 
Jerusalem," and doing this also in the spirit of the great mission- 
ary Apostle, who could say to the elders of the church at Ephesus, 
I " have shewed you, and have taught you publicly, and from house 
to house, testifying to both Jews and Greeks repentance toward 
God and faith toward our Lord Jesus Christ." 

But "Progressive Orthodoxy," on the contrary, places no 
emphasis upon "repentance, faith and holiness" as "personal 
requisites in the gospel scheme of salvation." The progressive 
divines are giving no noticeable exhibitions of evangelistic fervor. 
Indeed, they cannot, in consistency with their pantheistic beliefs, 
go everywhere preaching " repentance toward God and faith 
toward our Lord Jesus Christ," and laboring in season and out 
for the conversion and salvation of lost sinners. Why should 



Sixth Particular Complaint. 215 

they do anything for the redemption of men who are already in 
organic and vital union with Christ ? What more can be done for 
them? Even if a progressive professor should, under the influ- 
ence of his old but now abandoned evangelical faith, or from 
sheer force of habit, or for the purpose of holding on to a desir- 
able official position, continue to speak and teach in favor of 
immediate conversions, Pentecostal revivals, and evangelistic mis- 
sions, yet how long would he do so? These Andover progressives 
are properly called "liberal Christians" ; but "liberal Christians" 
have never been marvelously famous for their evangelistic and 
missionary labors. No honorable man will for any length of 
time teach and preach what is utterly discordant with his own 
beliefs. Already there is evidence that it is the chief purpose of 
the new-departure professors to train young men for philanthropic, 
socialistic, and educational work, to the neglect, if not exclusion, 
of all evangelistic labors. If the advocates of " Progressive 
Orthodoxy " preach and work in harmony with their opinions and 
beliefs, as sooner or later they certainly will do if they preach 
and labor at all, they must place all emphasis, not upon repentance 
and faith, nor upon any other voluntary obedience to God and to 
the gospel of his Son, but upon their own regnant theological 
principle of the organic and vital union of the entire race with 
Christ, proclaiming everywhere that all men are "in Christ" be- 
fore, and of course without, repentance, faith, and holiness, and 
even before and without atonement. What they are bound to 
make as conspicuous in their preaching as it is in their belief, is 
this, that for all practical ends the supreme need of every man is, 
not to repent of his sins and believe on Christ, but to know that 
he himself is in Christ, and that Christ is in him ; to know that he 
himself was in Christ, not only before repentance, faith, and 
obedience, but even before Christ was offered in sacrifice upon the 
cross. This "knowledge of Christ" is of supreme concern to 
every man. Personal repentance, faith, and obedience are of 
comparatively little moment. The phrases, "knowledge of 
Christ," "having knowledge of Christ," "to know Christ," 
abound in "Progressive Orthodoxy "and in nearly all the reli- 
gious writings and speech of the Andover progressives. We have 
not space for quotations, nor are they necessary. No one can 
read "Progressive Orthodoxy" without noting the frequent asser- 



216 Sixth Particular Complaint. 

tion, in one form or another, of the absolute indispensableness of 
" the knowledge of Christ." Just what this knowledge is, or what 
degree of it is so necessary, we are not clearly informed. Evi- 
dently, however, it is not that knowledge of God and of his Son 
Jesus Christ of which our Lord and his Apostles spoke. It is, as 
has already been shown, simply a knowledge of Christ in his union 
with men. In this view, what every man supremely needs is "to 
know " Christ in the alleged constitution of his person, in his alleged 
vital relation to every member of the human race ; to know that he 
himself, irrespective of his own character as righteous or wicked, 
or of auy act of his own, is united to the Lord Jesus by an or- 
ganic and vital union, and that he was thus united to Him before 
the crucifixion, and while Christ was suffering and dying upon the 
cross, and that he will be thus united to Him forever. This knowl- 
edge of Christ, it is claimed, may lead to repentance, faith, and holi- 
ness. It is also claimed that no man will or can repent without 
this knowledge. Consequently all members of the race who do not 
know Christ in this life must have opportunity to know Him, and 
will know Him, in the life to come. But what evidence is there 
that this knoivledge will bring any man to repentance either in this 
life or in the next? Where is the man who will testify that by 
his knowledge of Christ as vitally united to every human being 
he was brought to repentance, faith, and obedience? This dogma 
of the organic union of Christ with the entire human race has 
been accepted and loudly proclaimed in the last and the present 
centuries by Rellyan Universalists, and by other men holding 
pantheistic beliefs ; but how many persons are there who have 
been made penitent, believing, and holy by Rellyan Universalism 
and Pantheism? Unregenerate human nature being what it is 
described to be in God's Word, and what we know it to be, one 
would suppose that if an impenitent and persistent sinner could 
know assuredly that he is vitally and eternally united to Christ, he 
would break loose from all restraint, give full liberty to his lusts 
and passions, and plunge deeper than ever into wickedness. The 
moral fruit of Rellyanism, as can easily be shown, has thus far 
been anything but righteousness, and peace, and joy in the Holy 
Ghost. At all events, this emphasizing and magnifying " the 
knowledge of Christ," as He is set forth by " Progressive Ortho- 
doxy," in his pantheistic union with the entire human race, is in 



Sixth Particular Complaint. 217 

irreconcilable conflict with the Andover Creed, which attaches 
supreme practical importance, not to any speculative knowledge 
concerning the constitution and relations of Christ's being, but to 
personal " repentance, faith and holiness," as the indispensable 
conditions of our salvation. "Progressive Orthodoxy" teaches, 
without proof, that men are brought to repentance, faith, and holi- 
ness by their organic and vital union with Christ, and to salvation 
by their knowledge of that union. But the Andover Creed declares 
"that by convincing us of our sin and misery, enlightening our 
minds, working faith in us, and renewing our wills, the Holy 
Spirit makes us partakers of the benefits of redemption." The 
antagonism between these two beliefs, upon the supreme question 
of the way of salvation, is unqualified and irrepressible. 

The Atonement Made by the God-man. 

7. The defendant antagonizes the Creed and Statutes of the 
Seminary by denying that Christ, at the time when He made the 
atonement, was God as well as man. Who was the being who 
was offered in atoning sacrifice on Calvary? The statement of 
the Andover Creed is, that " the Son of God, and He alone, by 
his sufferings and death, has made atonement for the sins of all 
men." But who is "the Son of God"? The Andover Creed 
represents that He is the Second Person in the Trinity, " the same 
in substance, equal in power and glory " with the Father and the 
Holy Ghost, that He, " the eternal Son of God," " became man, 
and continues to be God and man in two distinct natures and one 
person forever " ; and that while He was continuing to be God and 
man, in two distinct natures and one Person, He " the Son of God, 
and He alone, by his sufferings and death, made atonement for 
the sins of all men." No mere creature, then, according to this 
Creed, was the author of the atonement. 

The Atonement Made by a Being Who was not God 
and Man. 

But the defendant denies that our Lord, while He was in the 
flesh and when He was offered in atoning sacrifice, was " God 
and man in two distinct natures." His belief is, as has already 
been shown under our Second Particular Charge, 



218 Sixth Particular Complaint. 

that Christ in the days of his humiliation was a finite being, limited in 
all his attributes, capacities and attainments; in other words was not 
God and Man ; 

that He was not omniscient nor omnipresent, nor possessed of 
any other infinite perfection ; that He did not at that time have 
any divine nature distinct from his human nature ; that it was 
his human nature that was divine, yet only as the human nature 
of every other man is divine. Christ while in the flesh was sim- 
ply and wholly human, and his divinity was simply the divineness 
of all humanity. He had only a human nature, yet this was 
" created capacious of Deity," and it is immediately added, 
"This is true also of other men according to their measure." 1 
The defendant affirms that 

it is the belief that God was in Christ so far as God can manifest his 
life in a human personality at a given period in history. 2 

But the same may be said of every other man. Yet did not 
Christ, while in the flesh, work mighty miracles of mercy, which 
required something more than human power? No. He wrought 
veritable works of healing, yet wrought them by human means 
and forces, as, for instance, by the power which a man with a 
healthy body has over a sick man, and "by hypnotic and mes- 
meric influence." 3 

Such is the teaching of the defendant. In his view, Christ in 
his earthly life, and when he made the atonement for the race of 
condemned and lost sinners, was as merely and wholly human as 
any other man is. 

Now was such a merely human creature "the Lamb of God that 
taketh away the sin of the world"? Did a mesmerizer, by his 
sufferings and death on Calvary, make atonement for the sins of 
all men ? It is safe to say that no representation respecting the 
divine Author of the atonement could have been more shocking 
or abhorrent than this to the Consistent Calvinists who founded 
Andover Seminary. It was a cardinal doctrine with them that 
no man or angel was equal to the task of consummating the stu- 
pendous atoning work needful for the salvation of sinners ; that 
only the eternal Son of God incarnated, only He who was both 
" God and man," could possibly have become "the propitiation 

i Prog. Orth. p. 21. 2 Andover Review, October, 1892, p. 398. 3 Ibid. 



Sixth Particular Complaint. 219 

for our sins, and not for ours only, but also for the sins of the 
whole world." Consistent Calvinists have always been strenu- 
ously opposed to the unscriptural notion, that when the eternal 
Son of God became flesh and made the atonement He ceased 
to be God and became only a creature. We have already alluded 
to the fact that Dr. Emmons, who aided in writing the Andover 
Creed, believed that the eternal Son of God, when He was taber- 
nacled in the flesh and dwelt with men, at the same time filled 
all heaven with his presence. Dr. Samuel Hopkins, whose fol- 
lowers called themselves Consistent Calvinists, speaking of the 
transcendent and ineffable work of redemption, says : — 

Dr. Hopkins's View. 

A mere creature would be infinitely unequal to this. It is necessary 
that this should be believed ; that his infinitely high and glorious per- 
son and character, as the true God, should be kept in view, in order to 
trust in him as the Redeemer of man from the infinite evil which he 
deserves, from a state of total moral depravity to the favor of God, to 
perfect holiness and eternal life, by his suffering and obedience, and 
by his power, wisdom, and goodness. 

It is necessary that he should be a person o*f infinite dignity, excel- 
lence and worthiness, in order to make atonement for sin by suffering 
the penalty of the law, as has been explained above from the Scriptures. 
The sufferings of a mere creature could do nothing towards this ; and 
had such an one offered to undertake this, it would have been so far from 
pleasing the Governor of the world, that it must be considered as an 
affront offered to him, most dishonorable to his character, law and 
government ; and the obedience of a mere creature or of all creatures, 
could not so honor the law, and the divine authority expressed by it, 
which sinners had reproached and trampled under foot by their rebellion, 
as to obtain favor, recovery from a state of sin, and eternal life for 
them, out of respect to the merit and worthiness of such obedience. 
This could be done by none but a person of infinite greatness and worth, 
and one who was under no obligation to obey antecedent to his volun- 
tarily taking upon him the form of a servant. And it requires infinite 
power, skill, and wisdom, to recover a rebel from total depravity and 
enmity against God and his law, to obedience and holiness, and infinite 
condescension and goodness. All this is ascribed to the Redeemer in 
the Holy Scriptures, as has been shown. And surely none can believe 
all this, and rely with confidence on the Redeemer for such redemption, 
who does not believe him to be truly God, infinitely great, honorable, 
powerful, wise and good. 1 

1 Hopkins's Works, vol. i, pp. 358, 359. 



220 Sixth Particular Complaint. 

These views of Dr. Hopkins respecting the deity of Christ while 
He dwelt in human form on the earth, and made atonement for 
the sins of all men, are the views of all Consistent Calvinists. 
These theologians hold, that, according to the Scriptures, an ade- 
quate atonement for all human sins could not have been made 
by any mere creature, not even by the highest archangel, but 
only by Him who was the eternal Son of God incarnated, the one 
and only God-man. Their lofty views of the Incarnate Son of 
God were in full accord with those of the great church-father, 
Athanasius, who, speaking of the Redeemer as manifested in the 
flesh, glorifies Him in such language as the following : — 

Athanasius' View. 

For He was not circumscribed in the body ; nor was so in the body as 
not to be elsewhere too. Nor, while He moved that, had He emptied the 
universe of His effectual working and providence ; but, what is most 
marvellous, being the Word, He was not contained by any thing, but 
rather contained all things Himself. And as, when present in the whole 
creation He is essentially distinct from it all, but in it all by His power, 
ordering all things, and unfolding His providence over all things in all, 
and quickening each and every thing at once, containing the universe, 
and not being contained, but existing wholly in His Father alone in 
every respect ; — so also, existing in a human body and Himself quick- 
ening it, He was naturally quickening also the universe, and was present 
in every part, yet outside the whole. And being known from the body 
through His works. He was manifest too from His working of the 
universe. . . . And this is the marvel, that He was at once living the 
daily life of a man, and as the Word was quickening all things, and as 
Son was present with the Father. Whence, not even when born of the 
Virgin, did He undergo change. 1 

Now when these sublime words of Athanasius respecting the 
Deity of our Incarnate Lord and Redeemer are compared with 
the words of the Andover progressives upon the same theme, 
what a stupendous contrast is presented ! No old pagan Panthe- 
ism glaring at us from out the language of this great church- 
father ; no dethroning of Christ, and telling us that He ceased to 
be God when He came to redeem lost sinners ; no deifying of our- 
selves and of all men, and telling us, what we know is false, that 
we are all God-men, as truly as Christ was a God-man ; no tear- 
ing out of our faith and out of our Bible the glorious mystery of 

1 De Incarnatione Verbi Dei, chap. xvii. 



Sixth Particular Complaint. 221 

the real incarnation of God in Christ ; nothing of this ; but our 
adorable Redeemer is presented to us as God and man; as human, 
yet at the same time as filling the universe with his quickening and 
sustaining presence ; manifested in a human body, yet at the same 
time manifested also through all his own vast creation, from which 
He is essentially distinct, but which He ever fills and transcends. 
Such an One is, indeed, *' very God and very man." And He it was, 
and He alone, who made atonement for the sins of all men. This 
is the sublime doctrine of the Andover Creed, and of all Consistent 
Calvinists, as well as of the great church-father, Athanasius. 

The Defendant's View. 

"Progressive Orthodoxy," on the other hand, degrades our 
infinite Redeemer by representing that in his earthly life He was 
merely and wholly a creature having only a created human nature 
with all its necessary limitations ; that this created nature was 
divine only in the sense in which all men and beasts and things 
are divine ; that our Redeemer's presence was limited to his body ; 
that his knowledge and power and wisdom were limited as truly 
as were those of any other man in his country, and at his period 
in history ; that it is simply ridiculous to believe, 

that God in all his absoluteness, omniscience, and omnipotence took on 
the form of a man and walked about among men in Galilee, so that 
Jesus knew all occurrences on earth and through the universe, and was 
conscious that he created the stars, and knew more not only than the 
ancients, but more than the moderns, of science and philosophy. 1 

The progressive professors hold that it is absolute nonsense to 
ascribe to the world's Incarnate Redeemer infinite knowledge. 
They doubtless regard those who believe that He was omniscient 
as men of no spirituality or mental ability, their minds being anti- 
quated and benighted ; 2 but are fully persuaded that those who 
live in the effulgent light that has recently broken upon the pro- 
gressive minds at Andover, and are in possession of their superior 
spirituality and ability, are abundantly competent to decide what 
the Almighty can do among men in Galilee, and what He cannot 
do, and are abundantly able, out of their own knowledge and wis- 
dom, to declare for the information of the world that the actual 

1 Andover Review, October, 1S92, pp. 397, 39S. 2 See The Andover Defence, p. 296. 



222 Sixth Particular Complaint. 

Incarnation of the eternal Son of God was an absolute impossi- 
bility ; that there never was such an incarnation ; that the Lord 
Jesus Christ, who once appeared in Galilee, and offered Himself 
as the world's Redeemer, was simply and wholly human ; that his 
divinity, so called, was nothing different in kind from their own ; 
that He was simply the creature of his own time and country, 
weak, ignorant, and helpless, and that by this man the atonement 
was made for the sins of all men, if, indeed, any atonement, so 
called, was ever made. Yet the said atonement was not made by 
Him alone, but by Him in union with and aided by all other men 
who ever have lived or ever will live. 

Now, Gentlemen of the Board of Visitors, between these views 
respecting the world's Redeemer and those set forth by the 
Andover Creed, by Consistent Calvinists and Athanasius, there 
is a great gulf fixed. It is broad and deep. There is no 
passing from the one side of it to the other. Between these 
two classes of views, no union or compromise is possible. 
Their antagonism is absolute and eternal. Yet the defendant 
and his progressive associates have promised, upon their honor, 
that they would maintain and inculcate the sublime views set 
forth by the Creed and by Consistent Calvinism — views which 
exalt and glorify the Incarnate Son of God. But, in fact, as we 
have shown, they are maintaining and inculcating views which 
not only shockingly misrepresent our Incarnate Redeemer, but also 
defame Him. 

The Founders of Andover Seminary were hospitable towards 
all new light, but it must be new light, and not old darkness. 
They avowed their own obligation to make progress in knowledge, 
and they expected to go on to know their adorable Lord and 
Redeemer forever and ever, and they expected all professors 
and students in their Seminary to do the same. The self-styled 
progressive divines, as their very name indicates, are in duty 
bound to make progress, and they loudly proclaim that they are 
doing so. But in what direction are they progressing, forward 
and upward, or backward and downward ? Their last and most 
advanced thought — so far as we know — respecting our Incarnate 
Saviour, is, that He was a mesmerizer! Now does this, their 
last advance in knowledge respecting our Redeemer, indicate 
that their boasted progress is forward and upward, or backward 



Sixth Particular Complaint. 223 

and downward? Compare also the littleness and the limitations 
of Christ's being and character as set forth by this last new name 
given Him, with the absolute infiniteness and the supreme majesty 
and glory of his being and character as set forth in the adoring 
language of Athanasius, and tell us, Gentlemen of the Board of 
Visitors, which of these contrasted and eternally conflicting views 
respecting our Incarnate Lord and Redeemer shall be maintained 
and taught on these Andover Foundations ? 

8. This pantheistic theory of atonement advocated by the 
defendant, and held up in " Progressive Orthodoxy" as the latest 
and most advanced thought respecting atonement, was well 
known to the Founders of Andover Seminary as the theory main- 
tained in their time by the so-called Rellyan Universalists. 

Rellyanism. 

We have already given, under our Third Particular Complaint, 
an outline of the history of Rellyanism in this country. It is not 
necessary to repeat that history here, but it is needful that it be 
distinctly recalled to mind. We did not give a full account of 
Rellyanism, as it lived and wrought in eastern Massachusetts for 
about forty years, from 1770 to 1810, — to do this would require 
a volume, — but we did give enough of that strange history to 
prove that, beyond question, the writers of the Andover Creed 
and Statutes, and all the Founders of Andover Seminary, were 
perfectly familiar with the pantheistic errors of Rellyan Uni- 
versalism. 

Andover Seminary was founded for the purpose of preparing 
young men for the Christian ministry, under the instruction of 
professors, who should be solemnly pledged to maintain and incul- 
cate the doctrines of the Seminary Creed and all the other 
doctrines of Consistent Calvinism, "in opposition to" thirteen 
specified classes of errorists. Now it will not be denied, that of 
these thirteen classes of errorists, there were two which the 
Founders had chiefly in mind and whose unscriptural beliefs they 
wished especially to oppose, namely, Unitarians and Universal- 
ists. Universalism had been rampant in New England and in 
some other parts of the country for nearly two scores of years, 
under the energetic lead of John Murray, " the father of Uni- 
versalism in America." Unitarianism had more recently asserted 



224 Sixth Particular Complaint. 

itself by taking possession of Harvard College, which was founded 
by orthodox men for the service, not only of good learning, but 
of evangelical religion, and by electing a Unitarian to the Hollis 
Professorship, which was founded to maintain the orthodox faith. 
There was, therefore, in the judgment of large numbers of evan- 
gelical people, urgent need of a theological seminar} 7 whose teach- 
ing and influence should be opposed to these two systems of un- 
evangelical belief. These errors were no longer indefinite, con- 
cealed, and unknown. They were now clearly defined, and the 
unscrupulous purpose of these errorists to get possession of the 
meeting-houses, vested funds, and other property of evangelical 
churches, as well as of evangelical institutions of learning, was 
beginning to be disclosed. 

Unitarianism. 

The generous Founders of Andover Seminary were not igno- 
rant of Unitarianism. They had definite knowledge of what it 
was, and, for reasons satisfactory to themselves, they so framed 
their Creed and Statutes as to make it forever impossible for an 
honest man to teach Unitarianism on their foundations. The 
Seminary is now eighty-five years old, and during this long period 
no distinctive doctrine or even phase of Unitarianism has been 
taught by aid of the trust funds provided by the orthodox 
Founders, until within the last few years. 

Rellyan Universalism. 

Nor were the Founders ignorant of Universalism. They had 
definite knowledge of it and a decided opinion of its character 
and influence. Gloucester in this State is not far from Newbury - 
port. In the latter town resided three of the chief Founders of 
Andover Seminary, namely, Dr. Samuel Spring, William Bartlet, 
and Moses Brown. At the time of the founding of the Seminary, 
the career of John Murray at Gloucester had become historic. 
His methods of procedure were such that officers of the town had 
ordered him to leave the community. A pamphlet had been pub- 
lished and widely distributed, giving a full account not only of his 
dishonorable and divisive attempts to get possession of the pulpit 
of the orthodox church during the sickness of its pastor, but also 
of some of the peculiar, Universalistic beliefs which he held and 



Sixth Particular Complaint. 225 

preached. On account of these historic occurrences at Gloucester, 
and others like them in other places, all well-informed people in 
New England had come to have a definite knowledge of Murray, 
of his personality, of his methods, and of his beliefs. The man 
himself and his Rellyan Universalism had been publicly and 
privately discussed throughout the Eastern and Middle States. 
Moreover, at the time Andover Seminary was founded, several 
editions of Relly's "Union" had been published in this country 
and had been rapidly and widely distributed. Dr. Samuel Hop- 
kins, Dr. Jonathan Edwards the younger, Dr. Nathanael Emmons, 
and other Consistent Calvinists had publicly and severely criti- 
cized the doctrines of the book. Probably there was not, at that 
time, an intelligent Christian minister in any of the religious de- 
nominations in New England who did not know what Rellyanism 
was. Wherever Murray went there was a tempest. All the 
Founders of Andover Seminary had been, through the larger part 
of their lives, in the more central part of the battle between 
evangelical faith and Rellyan Universalism. Did they forget 
this strenuous and persistent error when they were laying the 
foundations of their theological seminary ? Impossible. Murray, 
though an old man, was still preaching in Boston. The evidence 
is abundant that they had Rellyanism distinctly in mind when 
they were deciding what should and what should not be taught 
in their theological institution. Any man to-day who has only 
a general knowledge of Rellyanism can see, upon even a cur- 
sory examination of the language of the Founders, that they 
designedly so framed their Creed and Statutes as to make it for- 
ever impossible for any honest man to hold and teach any form 
of Universalism, and especially Rellyan Universalism, on their 
Foundations. And it is an historic fact, that no form or phase of 
Universalism ever has been held and taught by professors sup- 
ported by the Andover trust-funds, until recently. Within the 
last few years, a so-called " new theology," named by the defend- 
ant and his associates "Progressive Orthodoxy " has been forced 
into the Seminary. This so-called " Progressive Orthodoxy," the 
complainants claim, is essentially Rellyan Universalism. Under 
our Third Particular Complaint we have shown conclusively, as we 
believe, that " Progressive Orthodoxy" is, in its vital and central 
principle and largely in its development, Rellyan Universalism. 



226 Sixth Particular Complaint. 

We propose now to present still further evidence and argument 
in support of this position by showing that the theory of atone- 
ment set forth in " Progressive Orthodoxy" is identical with the 
theory advocated by Rellyan Universalism. 

The Rellyan Theory of Atonement the Theory op 
" Progressive Orthodoxy." 

(a) According to Rellyanism, the very heart and life of the 
atonement is the asserted verity that the entire human race was 
with Christ and in Him when He was offered up in sacrifice upon 
the cross. He and the race constituted one person. The race 
was an essential part of the very being of Christ. It was the ful- 
ness of Christ. Christ would not have been complete without 
the race. If a single member of the race had not been vitally 
united to Him, Christ would have been an imperfect, defective 
Christ. Speaking of the members of the human body, Relly 
says : — 

Take away the members and there will remain no body ; take a /ew, 
yea one only away, and the body is not perfect ; deny the proportion- 
able perfection of any one of these members, and then the symmetry of 
the body is destroyed. So also is Christ; take away the people [that 
is, the human race], or deny that they were united to their Head Jesus 
at some certain time, then was there at that time no Christ. Or if all 
the Church [all men] were not united to Him, but some particular mem- 
ber, or members, stood at any time unrelated to him ; then was he not 
a perfect Christ at that time. 1 

Such, according to Rellyanism, was the vital union of Christ 
with every human being when Christ hung upon the cross. This 
union is the absolute, pantheistic oneness of Christ and the 
human race. 

But this is also the teaching of the Andover progressives. 
" Progressive Orthodoxy," in all its discussion of the atonement, 
attaches supreme significance to the alleged verity that the entire 
human race was with and in Christ when He hung upon the cross, 
as has been abundantly shown. 

(b) Rellyanism represents that this vital union of all men with 
Christ imparts to them great power, dignity, and honor, and that 
on account of this betterment of men God regards them as having 

1 Union, p. 34. 



Sixth Particular Complaint. 227 

augmented importance and value, and, irrespective of their 
moral character, is propitiated and reconciled to them, and bestows 
upon them special love and favor. Rellyanists speak of the vital 
union of the human race with Christ as " this mysterious, this 
ennobling, this soul-satisfying Union" and often represent, that 
even the most wicked members of the race stand high in God's 
estimation, in spite of their wickedness, on account of their vital 
relation to Christ. Relly holds that all men alike are loved of 
the Father, because they and Christ constitute one person. He 
remarks : — 

Thus considering him [Christ] as the Head of his Body the Church, 
[which is the human race], we give Him the pre-eminence, as immedi- 
ately receiving all Grace and Glory from the Father ; which honour all 
the members, as united to him the Head, must necessarily partake of in 
Him. 1 

"All the members," then, all human beings, as united to Christ 
their Head, do now partake of all his honor and glory, and God 
must look upon them as having, irrespective of their moral charac- 
ter, a vastly augmented importance and value on account of their 
vital union with Christ. Such is the teaching of Kellyanism. 

But " Progressive Orthodoxy " presents substantially the same 
view. Take the following statements : — 

One view of atonement is gained by considering the historical Christ 
in relation to humanity and as identified with it ; in which view we see 
that the race of men with Christ in it is essentially different 4n fact, and 
therefore in the sight of God, from the same race without Christ 
in it. . . . 

Humanity may thus be thought of as offering something to God of 
eminent value. 2 

These statements of "Progressive Orthodoxy," and many 
others, represent, that the entire human race, by its organic and 
vital union with Christ, without any change whatever in its moral 
character, has received various kinds of powers and dignities, of 
which powers and dignities it was previously wholly destitute, and 
so has attained an importance, a respectability, and an eminent 
value in the sight of God which it did not have before, and on 
account of this eminent respectability and value thus imparted to 
the whole race, God is propitiated and reconciled to all men, and 

1 Union, p. 39. 2 Prog. Orth. pp. 52, 53. 



228 Sixth Particular Complaint. 

consequently all men, fallen and sinful as they are, and previous 
to any repentance or faith on their part, are freely and fully for- 
given and justified of God. 

This is not the place, nor have we the time, to characterize ade- 
quately this kind of atonement. But the point we now make and 
emphasize is that this theory of atonement set forth in " Progress- 
ive Orthodoxy," and now maintained and inculcated by the 
defendant and his progressive associates on the Andover Founda- 
tions, is identically that theory of atonement which constitutes an 
essential part of Rellyan Universalism. And it is for the Board 
of Visitors to decide, whether Rellyan Universalism can be de- 
fended and taught by any professor in Andover Seminary, even 
with the permission and aid of the Board of Trustees, without a 
criminal violation of most solemn promises and engagements, a 
gigantic breach of trust on the part of the Trustees, and also on 
the part of both Trustees and professors, a most extraordinary 
disregard, and an utter avoidance of the true intention of the 
Founders of the Seminary, as expressed in their Constitution and 
Statutes. 

(c) But the identity of the Rellyan theory of atonement with 
that of " Progressive Orthodoxy" is further and clearly disclosed 
in the fact, that both of these theologies persistently maintain 
that Christ was not " alone" when He was offered in atoning sac- 
rifice on the cross. All evangelical Christians from time immemo- 
rial have Relieved in and emphasized the aloneness of our Re- 
deemer in his sufferings and death. In Isaiah 63 : 3, 5, Jehovah 
is represented as saying, " I have trodden the wine-press alone; 
and of the people there was none with me. . . . And I looked 
and there was none to help ; and I wondered that there was none 
to uphold ; therefore mine own arm brought salvation unto me." 
These graphic and pathetic words of Jehovah doubtless have no 
reference whatever to the passion of our Lord. Yet by way of 
accommodation they have often been used as vividly expressive of 
what has always been the belief of evangelical Christendom 
respecting the aloneness of the Redeemer, when with none to help 
Him He bore the world's burden of sin and guilt on the cross. 

But both Rellyanism and " Progressive Orthodoxy" plainly con- 
tradict the general historic belief of the Christian Church upon 
this point, and dogmatically declare that our Lord was not alone 



Sixth Par tic alar Complaint. 229 

in his atoning sacrifice on Calvary, but that the entire human race 
was with Him and in Him as a constituent part of his person, 
when He suffered and died for the sins of all men. 

Rellyanisrn, indeed, affirms that, without this vital union of 
the race with the atoning Saviour, his sufferings and death would 
have been unjust and cruel. Kelly asserts that : — 

it doth not appear how God from a principle of mercy and peace 
towards Mankind, could punish sin upon Christ, without the concur- 
rence of Righteousness and Truth; nor can this concurrence or har- 
mony be proved ; without Union between Christ and those for whom he 
endured the Cross, and dispised the shame. 

First. Because, contrary to Truth, which declareth, . . . that the 
sinner shall die for his own sin; and that the righteous shall not 
suffer. . . . This is the language of Truth ; one jot or tittle of which 
shall not fail, though Heaven and Earth should pass away. Therefore, 
such an Union or relation between Christ and his Church [the human 
race], as gives Him the right of redemption, and brings Him under that 
Character which is obnoxious to punishment, is absolutely necessary, 
that His sufferings for sin might accord with the declarations and de- 
mands of truth. 

Secondly. It is contrary to Justice to afflict the Innocent : to punish 
and destroy him is cruelty and injustice. Without the consideration of 
Union, where is the Justice of charging the black rebellion, and crying 
guilt of Man, upon the pure and spotless Head of Jesus? . . . Sin is not 
only a Debt, for which suretyship is sometimes admitted, but a Trans- 
gression, a Crime, capital in the highest sense, only atoned for by the 
shedding of Blood ; by the Death, yea, by the eternal Death of the Sin- 
ner; which Justice must inflict before it can be properly satisfied; nor 
can it possibly admit of a Surety here, because it can only punish him 
whom it first finds guilty ; and that not by reckoning him to be what he 
is not, according to human quibbles ; but according to artless, reason- 
able, divine Equity, which can only declare such guilty, on whom the 
fault is found, and can only find the fault on such who have committed 
it. We only committed the fault, upon Us only can it be found. There- 
fore without such an Union between Christ and us, as exposes us, in his 
person, to Judgment and Condemnation, the harmony of the divine 
perfections doth not appear in the things which he suffered, because 
contrary to Truth and Justice. 

Again, it is contrary to Mercy, as Mercy may not, consistent with its 
own nature, trespass the limits of Truth and Justice. But if Jesus 
suffered for sin, without such an Union to the Sinner as made his suffer- 
ings and Blood to be regarded as that of the offender, though there be 
an appearance of mercy towards us, there is a great lack of it towards 
Him, who suffered for sin unjustly charged upon him. Such is not the 



230 Sixth Particular Complaint. 

nature of infinite Goodness, to show mercy to one through injustice to 
another: But if united to the Sinner there is a consistency, yea, a 
Divine Equity in His sufferings. 1 

Now all this explanation of what is alleged to have been ac- 
complished by the union of all men with Christ on the cross 
shows how absolutely indispensable it is, in maintaining the 
Rellyan theory of atonement, to prove that Christ was not alone 
in his sufferings and death. For if, in fact, He was alone on the 
cross, and there suffered and died in the room of, or instead of, all 
men, and not with and in them, then all support of the Rellyan 
theory of atonement is destroyed, and the whole theory falls to 
the ground. 

As Christ is in Condition, Act, and Character, so are 

all Men. 

But again, while Rellyanism claims that this pantheistic union 
of the Incarnate Son of God with the entire human race made 
it perfectly just and equitable for the sins of all men, as members 
of his body, to be visited upon Him as their Head, it also claims, 
that by this same union all men are made to share involuntarily in 
all that Christ is or does ; made to partake, without any volition 
of their own, in all Christ's condition and experiences, on the 
cross and everywhere else ; made to repent, believe, and obey in 
his perfect repentance, faith, and obedience ; and even while per- 
sisting in their sins, and before ever they have fulfilled one of 
those conditions of salvation prescribed in the gospel, made per- 
fectly righteous in the righteousness of Christ their Head, and 
crowned with all his honors and glories. Rellyanism affirms that 
man of himself has no power of any kind to obey the command- 
ments of the decalogue, or of the gospel of Christ. (Citations 
in proof of this statement may be found under our Third Particu- 
lar Charge.) But Rellyanism also affirms that all men, through 
their organic and vital union with Christ their Head, do, in his 
perfect obedience, themselves render an absolutely perfect obedi- 
ence to all the commandments of the law and the gospel, although 
at the same time they are fully conscious of continuing in the life 
and love of sin, and conscious too of their own helplessness to 

i Union, pp. 4-S. 



Sixth Particular Complaint. 231 

live a fife of righteousness. These views are expressed in the 
following language of Relly : — 

if this Church [that is, this human race], as united to Christ, is not per- 
fect, according to the perfection of beauty, in Righteousness, Holyness, 
Wisdom, and so forth, then is Christ deficient in those particulars: 
which to affirm will be agreed upon by all his worshipers to be blas- 
phemy. From hence we may infer, that whatever Jesus was, whatever 
He did, suffered, or now is, under the Character Christ, the people, as the 
fullness of him who filleth all in all, are not excluded ; but to be consid- 
ered with him, and in him, in the same circumstances, and condition, 
through every dispensation. 1 

Of similar import is the following statement : — 

From hence it is evident, that the Union between Christ and the People 
was such (as Head and Members in one Body) that they were with Him, 
and in Him, in his Birth, his Life, his Death, Resurrection and Glory. 
Therefore his Sufferings, Wars, and Triumphs, all are theirs. And they 
have a right from this, to rejoice in Him; in what He has done, in wmat 
He is, and in the acceptance He hath found with the Father ; and that, 
over all the weakness, and vanity they perceive in themselves. 2 

On anotaer page Relly breaks out in such exultant language as 
the following : — 

And O, what grace is this ! that we helpless worms, whose every 
word, work and thought is unholy, yea in whom according to the 
strongest testimony of our senses and reason, there is yet found the 
motions, life and love of sin, should have a right to reckon ourselves 
dead unto sin ; dead unto what we yet feel the life of, dead unto what 
we yet feel the love of, dead unto what is yet stronger than we, and 
against which our utmost efforts when compared with its strength are 
feebleness itself ; it esteems all our Iron as straw, and our Brass as 
rotten wood ; and yet to reckon ourselves dead unto this, what an amaz- 
ing reckoning it is! Yea, not only dead unto sin, whereby we are 
exempt from its filth, guilt and condemnation; but we are to reckon 
ourselves positively Holy, Righteous and fruitful, Alive unto God! and 
that in Opposition to all we see, feel or understand of ourselves, accord- 
ing to sense. . . . Hence we have authority to conclude, if he is right- 
eous, we are righteous ; as He we are holy ; as He we are wise ; as He 
we have obtained redemption, and are accepted with Him. . . . We 
would always believe in hope, in hope of his being accepted, of God's 
being well pleased in him, and of our being accepted, and well-pleasing 
as him, by the Grace of Union with him. . . . Our right and priviledge 
is to judge of ourselves and of our state towards God, by Union with 

1 Union, pp. 34, 35. 2 n,^. p# 42. 



232 Sixth Particular Complaint. 

Christ: By the Father's choice of him, His choice of us; by his love to 
him, his love unto us ; by his acceptance of him, his acceptance of us; 
by his eternal life and glory, our eternal life and glory ; and all this, 
without once considering the work of our own hands, or the desires, 
yearnings, or meditations of our Hearts. . . . But unto all the Gentiles, 
the outcasts, the destitute, the Sinners amongst Mankind, with all who 
know themselves, and groan beneath the miseries of man, here are 
tidings of great Joy. There is a Saviour born unto you, a Saviour who 
is Christ the Lord; and what is more, tho' you are worthless, He is 
worthy. Though you are lost, He is found ; though you are unright- 
eous, unholy, unwise, yet He is Eighteous, Holy, Wise, and withall so 
nearly related, so closely united unto you, that you may Reckon your- 
selves to be what he is, and viewing him as yourselves through all He did 
and suffered, have your conscience purged from Dead works, stand 
washed, and acquitted in his Bloody Death, and have the answer of a 
good conscience towards God, by his resurrection. 1 

Immorality of Rellyanism. 

This is saying to all men, even to the most wicked and aban- 
doned of men, "You need not be troubled on account of your 
sins. You may be profoundly conscious that you are plunging 
deeper and deeper into wickedness, and are waxing worse and 
worse. But what of it? Fear not. You have no occasion to be 
troubled, or to tremble in dread of the things that are coming. 
Throw off all conviction of sin. You have no need to bear any 
burden of guilt on your soul, still less of remorse and despair. 
For even while you are sinning, you are in Christ and Christ is in 
you. The entire human race is the body of Christ, and each one 
of you is a member of that body, and can no more perish than 
Christ can perish. Moreover, you were with and in Christ Jesus 
in his sufferings and death on the cross, and there with Him made 
full atonement for all your sins. And what is more and better 
still, in your vital union with Christ you have a right to regard 
Him as your very self, and yourself as being what He is, and as 
doing what He does, and as experiencing what He experiences, 
in all his conditions, acts, sufferings, joys, and honors. You of 
yourself have no power to repent, or believe, or obey ; but in 
union with Christ you have already offered to God a perfect re- 
pentance, faith, and obedience. Sin as much as you may, con- 
scious as you may be of having in you ' the motions, life, and 

1 Union, pp. 88-91. 



Sixth Particular Complaint. 233 

love of sin,' yet, 'so nearly related to Christ, so closely united* 
and identified with Him are you, that you may view Him as 
yourself, and reckon yourself to be perfectly righteous in his 
righteousness." 

Now most men, however wicked they may be, if addressed in 
this manner would naturally ask: "Is this doctrine you are 
preaching true ? Is it the very word of God ? Can we trust in it 
as the veritable revelation and gospel of Christ?" "Yes," Relly 
would answer. But we would reply, "Everything depends upon 
the answer that must be given to another question." That ques- 
tion is this : Was Christ Jesus alone in his sufferings and death on 
the cross, or did He have " with Him and in Him" the entire 
human race? If He was alone in his great atoning sacrifice, and 
no member of the race was " with Him and in Him" in his pas- 
sion and death, then the whole system of Rellyan beliefs breaks 
down, and the whole Rellyan gospel, like so much mist or smoke, 
vanishes into nothing. Now, that there ever was such a union of 
the eternal Son of God with the entire human race as makes all 
men with Him one person, all having only one common life, we 
venture to affirm, has never yet been proved from Revelation or 
from reason. But it has been and is the common belief of the 
Christian Church that, according to the Scriptures, Jesus Christ 
is the " only Redeemer" of men, and that He, "and He alone, 
by his sufferings and death," has procured redemption for all 
men who repent of their sins and believe on Him. 

John Murray. 

. The Rellyan views presented in the citations which we have just 
made from James Relly were also heartily accepted by John 
Murray, and were the staple of his preaching. This will be indi- 
cated by a few passages from his writings. Murray remarks : — 

The soul that sinneth it shall die, says the prophet, . . . and as God 
declared he would by no means clear the guilty, this sentence of death has 
been fully executed on every man. . . . Jesus came to fulfil this law, 
yea, every jot, and tittle thereof ; therefore he die"d once for all. . . . 
Thus God, instead of clearing the guilty, exacted the uttermost farthing ; 
hence he is a just God, and a Saviour : hence he is just in justifying the 
ungodly; and hence also appears the justice of God in the sufferings 
and death of him, who, in himself, detached from the race of Adam, 
was pure and undefiled, perfectly sinless. But, it should be remembered, 



234 Sixth Particular Complaint. 

Christ is the head of every man ; the individuals of the lost nature con- 
stitute the aggregate of our Lord's mystical body ; the comprehensive 
term union is the key by which we unlock this mystery, the head and 
members are united, and the iniquity of the members is visited upon the 
head. In any other view that law, which is holy, just and good, could 
not have condemned to death an immaculate being ; there would be as 
much injustice in punishing the innocent, as in clearing the guilty ; but I 
repeat, our Almighty Saviour was the head of the lost nature, and he 
became accountable for the sins committed by the members of his body. 
. . . Thus then, in this stupendous connection, bearing the sins of his 
body, it became divinely just that he should suffer the death, that the 
punishment should follow the offence; but if it were just to inflict the 
penalty of death upon Jesus Christ for our sins, then it becomes just 
that we should live through him ; hence, as he died for us that whether 
we wake or sleep we should be the Lord's, so he is now our life, and 
when he who is our life shall appear, then shall we appear with him in 
glory. Now, therefore, may every soul that hath sinned, say with the 
Apostle Paul, who styled himself the chief of sinners, " O death, where is 
thy sting? O grave, where is thy victory? The sting of death is sin," 
but we behold the Lamb of God who taketh away the sin of the world. 1 

Nor was it simply in his life, sufferings, and death, but also in 
every other condition of his, that Christ Jesus was in vital union 
with the entire human race. Murray teaches that 

The human nature of Emmanuel is part of every child's flesh; and 
every human soul inhabiting a tenement of flesh has as much right to 
left his adoring eye to Jesus Christ, as a part of himself, as any member 
of my body might, if it had sense in itself, claim my head as a part of 
itself. Jesus is not flesh and bone, distinct from our flesh and bone, 
but he is flesh of our flesh, and bone of our bone. For both he who 
sanctifleth, and they who are sanctified are all of one. And this is at all 
times the comprehensive character of the Redeemer, insomuch that 
when he was born without sin, we were in that eventful moment created 
anew in Christ Jesus; when he was crucified, we were crucified with 
Christ Jesus; when he died we were buried by baptism into his death; 
and when he arose, raised up from the dead by the glory of the Father, 
even so that we also should walk in newness of life. . . . And we as- 
cended with Christ, being heirs of God and joint-heirs with Christ. 2 

Murray, as well as Relly, held that Christ and the entire human 
race constitute " one Son of Man," one " life or soul," one univer- 
sal person, so that every human being's life is one with the life 
of Christ, and his righteousness one with the perfect righteousness 

1 Letters and Sketches of Sermons, by John Murray, vol. i, pp. M-46. 2 Ibid. p. 255. 



Sixth Particular Complaint. 235 

of Christ. The communion bread, as composed of many grains 
of wheat, Murray uses as an illustration. The grains of wheat, 
he says, 

being all collected together, are together ground, together leavened with 
one leaven, together baked in one oven, and being brought forth in one 
piece of bread, "This," says the Redeemer, "is my body." My body 
is not a single grain, but it is all the harvest collected. It pleased the 
Father, that in him all fulness should dwell. Thus the fulness of the hu- 
man nature was in the God-man, and as the many grains of wheat con- 
stituted one piece of bread, so the many children of men made one Son 
of man, the many bodies one body ; and as all the grains of wheat, what- 
ever their appearance while growing in their natural state, partake in 
this bread the same condition ; so the whole lump in the second Adam, 
partakes of one life, one righteousness. . . . 

As the many grapes being pressed together, after they are all gath- 
ered into one vat, make one cup of wine, so the many lives, or souls of 
all the ruined race, all gathered into one, is what Jesus calls his soul. 
... As these grapes grew on the vines in their natural state, there was 
a very visible difference, some large and some small, some filled with 
refreshing juice and some nearly dry ; but looking with a single eye to 
this cup, or to the substance of this figure, the life or soul of Jesus 
Christ, we find all distinctions completely swallowed up, precisely as in 
the bread or body. . . 

Now what is a communion, but a gathering together? the Apostle 
therefore teaches us, that as the bread we break is the gathering to- 
gether of the multitude of grains, and the cup of wine the gathering 
together of the multitude of grapes; so the body and blood of Jesus 
Christ is the gathering together of the many who were lost by the trans- 
gression of the first, and by this wonderful method recovered in the 
second Adam. 1 

Every Man a ' ' Legal Heir " of the Life Everlasting. 

Murray went so far as to claim, that every sinner, irrespective 
of his own character, or of any obedience of his own, has a legal 
right to Christ's righteousness, and to everlasting life as the 
reward of that righteousness, and that this legal right of every 
sinner is grounded solely on his organic and vital union with 
Christ. In a letter to a friend he says • — 

In the fulness of time the second Adam made his appearance: when 
the law spoke to him, and to us also in him, had he failed, we should 
have been totally ruined ; but he having suffered the punishment due to 

1 Letters and Sketches of Sermons, by John Murray, vol. i, pp. 235-237 



236 Sixth Particular Complaint. 

our transgressions, delivered us from death, and having fulfilled all 
righteousness for us, we became legal heirs of everlasting life. . . . 

Yes, truly, mankind are as much entitled to eternal life, through what 
Jesus Christ has performed and suffered, as if every individual had thus 
in his own proper person performed and suffered. 1 

We are thus " entitled" however consciously sinful we may be, 
to look upon ourselves as perfectly righteous, because, according 
to Murray, 

When we behold Christ Jesus, we behold ourselves, for he is the head 
of every man. In him dwelleth all fulness. In Christ Jesus both Jew 
and Gentile constitute one new man. 2 

All this is thoroughgoing Rellyanism. 

Knowledge of Christ, Man's Supreme Need. 

Murray also, as well as Relly, held and taught, that the su- 
preme present need of every man is to know of this alleged verity 
of his own vital and imperishable union with Christ. 

All men, according to Murray, are redeemed from the curse of 
the law and are saved from the wrath of God by their union 
with Christ. But they do not know or believe this, and therefore 
live in mental fear and torment. He says : — 

I endeavor to prove that the death and sufferings of Jesus Christ have 
taken away the sting of death, and rendered it a blessing to mankind ; 
But that they will never see it so until they believe the gospel, which 
bringeth life and immortality to light ; and that although Jesus, by his 
death, redeemed them from that death which is called the curse of the 
law, yet nevertheless, so long as they are ignorant of this, so long they 
are children of wrath, vessels of wrath fitted for destructions, and the 
wrath of God apparently abideth on them ; but yet they are saved from 
wrath through their Redeemer, and sooner or later they shall be made 
acquainted with this truth. 3 

Murray usually speaks of the condemnation of sinners as 
merely their own self-condemnation, their remorse of conscience ; 
and he teaches that they can be saved from this inward torment 
only by a knowledge of the Relly an theory of salvation, or 
of the inclusion of all men in the person of Christ. Speak- 
ing of the sinner who is " miserable from the knowledge of his 
unrighteousness," and because he is " convinced that without 

1 Letters and Sketches, vol. ii, p. 312. 2 Ibid. vol. iii, p. 120. 3 Ibid. vol. i, p. 313. 



Sixth Particular Complaint. 237 

holiness no man shall see the Lord," he points out the following 
method of giving him consolation : — 

When the gospel is preached to him, assuring him that Jesus is made 
unto him sanctification, that this great High Priest wears on his head, for 
ws, holiness to the Lord, and that we are authorized to view that head, 
thus adorned, as our head, hearing that the head of every man is Christ, 
and the head of Christ is Gpd, — when these divine gospel truths are 
heard and believed, he is completely saved from condemnation or 
damnation. 1 

This preacher of Rellyanism taught, that if men die without 
knowledge of the Rellyan gospel, they will experience nothing 
but misery in the next world, until they have knowledge of and 
belief in that gospel. In his view the unbeliever is not simply 
the man who does not trust in Christ for forgiveness and the life 
everlasting, but he is the man who does not believe the Rellyan 
gospel with its pantheistic doctrine of the inclusion of the entire 
human race in the person of Christ. The following are his 
words : — 

Yes, undoubtedly, the unbeliever at his death bids adieu to every 
source of consolation ; and not informed that he has redemption in the 
Beloved, and that God can be a just God and a Saviour, he feels ten 
thousand deaths in fearing one ; and this misery shall continue until the 
people are all taught of God, until the face of the covering shall be 
removed, and the veil taken from all nations, and death swallowed up 
in victory. 2 

All men, according to the Rellyan view, are saved, but they do 
not all know that they are saved. Their ignorance of their own 
salvation is their misery. In this view, the sinner's probation is 
not opportunity to repent of his sins and to trust in God's mercy 
for forgiveness and life eternal, but it is opportunity to know that 
he has already been forgiven and saved without having fulfilled 
any conditions of salvation whatever — saved in his sins, but not 
from them. There are no conditions of salvation in the Rellyan 
gospel. Men have no power to repent, believe, and obey ; and 
all their attempts to do these things are miserable failures and 
useless. The gospel is an announcement of salvation and glory 
already obtained in Christ, and not a call to salvation and glory 
to be obtained in Christ through repentance, faith, and obedience. 

1 Letters and Sketches, vol. i, p. 374. 2 Ibid. vol. ii, p. 252 



238 Sixth Particular Complaint. 

Murray makes use of the following illustration : — 

When the glory of the Lord shone round about those shepherds, their 
fears were excited by their ignorance of God ; and so, just so, when the 
sinful world shall behold their Saviour in the clouds of heaven, with 
power and great glory, they will be sorely afraid : not apprehending him 
to be their Saviour, they will call upon the rocks and mountains to hide 
them from the wrath of that Lamb of God, who hath taken away the sin of 
the world. Yet in the Lamb, there is certainly no wrath, but the fearful 
and unbelieving judge from their own darkened and tormented minds. . . . 

Fear not ; for behold I bring you good tidings of great joy which shall be 
to all people. What were these glad tidings of great joy which were to 
be to all people ? That they may be saved if they would? That there was 
a Saviour born unto believers? Do you not, my beloved hearers, know 
that this was not the language of this celestial messenger? 

But what were these glad tidings ? There is born unto you this day, in 
the city of David, a Saviour, which is Christ the Lord. This consideration 
was in truth, and indeed sufficient to banish, to annihilate their fears, 
for he could not be their Saviour, if they were never to be saved; he could 
not be the Saviour of any individual who was never saved. These tidings 
were indeed glad tidings of great joy. 1 

Murray, in the style of " Progressive Orthodoxy," emphasizes 
the importance of knowing God "as He is" — not as He is 
revealed in the Scriptures — but as He is conceived to be in pan- 
theistic Relly anism, as including in Himself the entire human 
race, and having with all men one common life. He says : — 

It is a blessed thing to know God. We are told, it is life eternal to 
know God; but certainly it is not life eternal to know God, except we 
know God as he is, the life of the world. It is a blessed thing to know 
God in this character, for in knowing him to be the life of the world, 
each individual of the world who thus knows him knows him to be his 
life; and each individual thus taught can say for himself, God is my 
life ; and he whom God gives by his Spirit's teaching thus to know him, 
is an individual in that little remnant, who is saved in consequence of 
believing; but this not to the exclusion of the rest, for when every eye 
shall see, then every heart will consequently believe. 2 

Christ Not Alone on the Cross. 
These numerous citations have been made from the writings of 
James Relly and John Murray, partly for the purpose of setting 
forth fully, and in their own phraseology, the Relly an theory of 
atonement, in order that the Visitors may be able, at their leisure, 
to compare this Rellyan theory of atonement with the theory pre- 

i Letters and Sketches, vol. iii, p. 246. * Ibid. p. 322. 



Sixth Particular Complaint. 239 

sented in " Progressive Orthodoxy," and thus to decide for them- 
selves the question of the identity of these two theories. We 
have made these numerous citations chiefly, however, for the 
purpose of establishing, beyond all dispute, the truth of our 
assertion, that, according to Rellyanism, Christ was not alone on 
the cross, but that, in making atonement by his sufferings and 
death for the sins of the world, He had with Him and in Him the 
entire human race ; that the race, from Adam to the last man who 
shall ever be born on the earth, was united to Christ by a vital 
union, a union like that which unites the body to the head in the 
human form, making of both one man. The entire race, accord- 
ing to Rellyanism, is the body of Christ, and every man is a 
member in particular of that body. Thus all men and Christ, 
gathered together and united in one, constitute one person — the 
head, the body, and all the members having one common life. It 
cannot be truthfully denied, that the citations we have presented 
abundantly prove that such is the Rellyan theory of the constitu- 
tion of Christ's person, and that consequently our Lord was not 
alone in his sufferings and death on the cross. 

''Progressive Orthodoxy" in Full Accord with Rellyanism. 

But this Rellyan theory of the constitution of Christ's person 
is identically that presented in "Progressive Orthodoxy." The 
progressive professors, as we have repeatedly shown, represent 
over and over again, that Christ Jesus was not alone in his suffer- 
ings and death, but had with Him and in Him, by an organic and 
vital union with Himself, the entire human race ; that every human 
being is "in Christ" and that Christ is in every human being, 
for He is the life of every man. They teach that " the historical 
Christ in relation to humanity " is to be considered " as identified 
with it," that "When Christ suffers, the race suffers. When 
Christ is sorrowful, the race is sorrowful." Of course, Christ 
and all men, if existing in such organic and vital union, have 
one common life, and constitute one all-comprehending person. 
"Progressive Orthodoxy " declares that 

The created universe and all rational beings are . . . in Christ. . . . 
his universe is not attached to him externally, but vitally. He is not a 
governor set over it, but is its life everywhere. 1 

1 Prog. Orth. pp. 43, 44. 



240 Sixth Particular Complaint. 

This is pure Rellyanism. Relly and Murray would have accepted 
these statements at once with thanksgiving and joy as defining accu- 
rately their own favorite doctrine. This is also Universalism — 
not the form of Universalism now accepted and preached by all 
Universalists, but the Universalism which was held and preached 
in New England in the latter part of the last century and in the 
early part of the present century. It is also Pantheism. If 
Rellyanisrn is a pantheistic theology, "Progressive Orthodoxy" 
is also, for they both have in them the very same central and 
dominating pantheistic principles, that of the organic and vital 
union of all men with Christ, and the identification of the life of 
all men with the life of God. If Rellyanism is Universalism, as 
its friends and foes alike have always declared it to be, then 
"Progressive Orthodoxy" is Universalism also, for they both 
alike maintain that all men have in them the very life of Christ, 
and are thus made constituent parts of Christ's being ; and if 
these propositious are established, it must follow, that no man can 
ever perish unless a certain part of the very being of Christ 
perishes. It thus appears to be true, that " Progressive Ortho- 
doxy," in its vital and controlling principle, is Relly an, that is, 
pantheistic, Universalism. 

The Question at Issue. 

We come now to the vital question, to the practical issue before 
us. It is this : Can the Rellyan theory of atonement, as pre- 
sented in "Progressive Orthodoxy" and in the writings of Relly 
and Murray, be legally and righteously taught by any professor 
on the Andover foundations? Certainly this theory cannot be 
taught on these foundations with honor and righteousness ; and 
this for such reasons among others as the following : — 

Pantheistic Universalism is not Consistent Calvinism. 

1. The Statutes of the Associate Foundation require that every 
professor on that Foundation shall be a" Consistent Calvinist." 
We hardly need say in the presence of the Visitors that no two 
theologies are in more absolute antagonism each to the other than 
are Rellyan Universalism as advocated in " Progressive Ortho- 
doxy " and in the writings of Relly and Murray, and Consistent 
Calvinism as held and advocated bv Founders of Andover Sem- 



Sixth Particular Complaint. 241 

inary ; and no two views of the atonement are more absolutely 
contradictory each of the other than are the Rellyan theory and 
the doctrine of the Andover Creed. These two theologies can 
no more be brought into agreement than fire and water, or light 
and darkness, can be brought into agreement. 

Opinion of an Andover Professor. 

True, one of the defendant professors, in his trial before the 
Board of Visitors in 1886, expressed a decided conviction that 
these two systems of belief are in perfect accord, and that a 
man can be at one and the same time a pantheistic Universalist 
and a Consistent Calvinist. He frankly acknowledged that he 
himself heartily accepted, and was perfectly fascinated with, the 
notion, that the entire human race is in vital union with Christ, 
so that every human being is a member of the body of Christ. 
He rejoiced in the belief that Christ himself is in every man and 
that consequently all that any man needs to do is to build upon 
Christ already within him. Thus that defendant professor con- 
fessed himself a Rellyan Universalist. Yet in the same defence 
he disclosed his agility and astuteness as a theologian by declar- 
ing with some vehemence : " if I am not an ' orthodox and con- 
sistent Calvinist' according to the Creed, in my theological convic- 
tions and methods, I am nothing." Then (we are compelled to 
reply) , he is nothing. For who does not know that a man can no 
more be, at once, a Rellyan Universalist and a Consistent Calvin- 
ist than he can go in two opposite directions at one and the same 
time ; or than he can be at the same moment a benighted heathen 
and an educated Christian ? The Statutes require that every pro- 
fessor on the Associate Foundation shall be "an orthodox and 
consistent Calvinist"; and a Rellyan Universalist, as everybody, 
save the said professor, knows, is not " an orthodox and consist- 
ent Calvinist," and therefore cannot with honor and righteous- 
ness hold a professorship on that Foundation. 

Every Professor Pledged to Oppose Universalism. 

2. Another reason why this Rellyan theory of atonement can- 
not be honorably taught in Andover Seminary is, that every pro- 
fessor has put himself under the most solemn obligations to teach 
the doctrines of the Creed " in opposition to" Universalism. But 



242 Sixth Particular Complaint. 

this Eellyan theory of atonement is, as we have abundantly 
shown, Universalism. 

The Teaching of Rellyanism Forbidden by Statute. 

3. Then there is a third reason why this Rellyan theory of 
atonement cannot be lawfully taught in Andover Seminary. The 
Founders provided in their Statutes, that every professor should 
be religiously pledged to teach that Christ was absolutely " alone" 
in his sufferings and death on the cross. " Progressive Ortho- 
doxy " teaches that he was not alone in his atoning sacrifice. We 
have already called attention to the irreconcilable conflict of the 
two theologies at this point. But this particular antagonism needs 
to be further explained, that its decisiveness in this argument may 
be fully understood. 

Every professor in subscribing to the Creed declares : — 

I believe, . . . that . . . the Son of God, and He alone, by his suffer- 
ings and death, has made atonement for the sins of all men. 

Why was that word "alone" introduced into this Creed-state- 
ment? It is not found in the catechism, nor, so far as we know, 
in the same connection in any other confession of faith. How 
came it to be in the Andover Creed ? The writer of that Creed 
and those who advised with him were, as we have shown, per- 
fectly familiar with the writings of James Relly and "the wild 
and confused mysticism " of John Murray. One at least of 
these framers of the Creed had publicly discussed and refuted 
"the horrid doctrine" of Rellyanism. There is evidence that 
they had a profound dread of this "doctrine" as "hazardous 
to the souls of meii^" and that they were determined that it should 
never be held and taught by any professor in their Seminary. 
Hence they put two words into their Creed, the word "per- 
sonal " (to which we have already called attention under our 
Third Particular Charge) and the word " alone"; and they put 
them both in such positions as would, in their judgment, make 
it forever impossible for any professor to teach Rellyanism 
without breaking sacred promises and engagements, and per- 
verting the trust-funds of the Seminary. Along the years 
•immediately preceding the founding of Andover Seminary, 
repeated editions of two of Relly's works, usually bound 



Sixth Particular Complaint. 243 

together, had been issued in this country, and industriously 
circulated through New England. The writers of the Andover 
Creed must have noted, in reading the pages of Relly, how per- 
sistently and with what numerous illustrations he teaches that the 
entire human race was " with and in Christ," on the cross and 
everywhere else ; how repeatedly he declares, that man of himself 
cannot do what God requires of him, — cannot repent, or believe, 
or be holy, — but that in his vital union and real identification with 
Christ he can do all these things, indeed has already repented in 
Christ's repentance, believed in Christ's faith, and even while in 
his sins has been made absolutely holy in Christ's perfect holiness. 
Thoroughly familiar as the writers of the Creed were with this 
teaching of Relly and Murray, and personally acquainted as they 
were with its divisive and perversive influence, they naturally 
determined that every professor-elect, as a condition of taking his 
chair, should solemnly and publicly declare : — 

I believe, . . . that repentance, faith, and holiness are the personal 
requisites in the gospel scheme of salvation. 

The meaning of this Creed-statement cannot be misunderstood. 
The professor, as a condition of taking and holding his chair, 
must say in substance: " According to the gospel scheme of 
salvation as I understand it, accept it, and will teach it, sinners 
are not saved through their repentance in Christ's repentance, 
through their believing in Christ's faith, and through their being 
made holy in Christ's holiness ; but, as conditions of their being 
saved by Christ they must personally repent of their sins, person- 
ally believe on Christ, and he personally holy." 

The Founders of the Seminary also, impelled by what they 
knew of Rellyanism and what they had seen of its working, de- 
termined that never in their Seminary should any professor hold 
and teach that the entire human race was " with and in Christ" 
when, by his sufferings and death on the cross, He made atone- 
ment for the sins of men. Consequently they put into their Stat- 
utes the requirement, that every professor-elect, as a condition of 
taking his chair, and every professor once in every five years, 
as a condition of holding his chair, should solemnly declare : — 

I believe, . . . that . . . the Son of God, and he alone, by his sufferings 
and death, has made atonement for the sins of all men. 



244 Sixth Particular Complaint. 

That one word "alone " is fatal to the claim of the defendant, 
that he and his progressive associates can lawfully and honorably 
teach, on the Andover foundations, that all men, from Adam to 
the last child that shall ever be born on this earth, were "with 
and in Christ" when He hung upon the cross in atoning sacri- 
fice for the sins of the world. The statement in the Creed, that 
u the Son of God, and He alone" made the atonement, makes it 
impossible for any honest professor to teach in Andover Seminary 
that the Son of God was not alone on the cross. No wonder the 
progressive professors wish to get rid of that word "alone"! 
But how can they ? There it is in the Creed ; and they cannot get 
it out of the Creed. 

Objection of One of the Defendants. 

At the trial of the accused professors before the Visitors in 
1886, one of the complainants called attention to this word 
" alone" and to its decisive significance in the Creed. Professor 
George Harris, Abbot Professor of Christian Theology, and one 
of the defendants, appeared to be much disturbed, and in his 
4 ' defence" made the following reply, uttering the last two or 
three sentences seemingly in considerable heat : — 

The fact that Christ in his incarnation became a real man in organic 
relation with the human race gives the most profound conception of his 
Atonement. It should also be observed, that in the statement concern- 
ing incarnation it is perfectly clear that something other is meant than 
the completed union of Christ with the believer. And this view of 
Christ's proper humanity is argued to be in opnosition to the statement 
of the Creed that Jesus Christ and he alone made atonement for the sins 
of all men ; as if " alone " means that he has no organic union with the 
men for whom he laid down his life. This is as complete a reversal of 
an author's meaning as it was ever my misfortune to hear. 1 

But if our interpretation of that word "alone" in its connection 
and purpose, is a "complete reversal" of the Founders' mean- 
ing, why did not the learned professor tell us just what the 
Founders did mean by that word ? The fact that he did not state 
distinctly what he regards as the true meaning and purpose of 
that word in the Oeed is reasonable evidence in the circum- 
stances that he could not find in it any meaning or force other 

1 The Andover Defence, p. 295. 



Sixth Particular Complaint. 245 

than that which we find in it. We do not blame the professor 
for being disturbed by the statement in the Creed, that " the Son 
of God, and He alone," made the atonement. That statement 
sweeps away in a flash all his assumed right to teach on the 
Andover foundations, that the Son of God was not alone in his 
atoning sufferings and death. It is a death-blow to all his hopes 
and assurances of being able to maintain and inculcate lawfully 
and righteously, in Andover Seminary, a theory of atonement, 
the central and essential principle of which is the vital, living 
union of the whole human race with Christ, when He was lifted 
up in atoning sacrifice upon the cross. 

The professor may dislike that word " alone" as it stands in 
the Creed. He may dislike still more our interpretation of it. 
But neither the word nor its meaning can be changed. We chal- 
lenge the professor to show that our statement of the history, the 
meaning, and the purpose of this Creed-word is false. We believe 
it to be established as an historical fact, that this decisive word 
was put into the Creed by its authors for the express purpose of 
making it utterly and forever impossible for any true and honest 
man to hold and teach, in Andover Seminary, the Rellyan theory 
of atonement, which is, that Christ was not alone on the cross, 
but that all human beings were " with and in Him" in his suffer- 
ings and death, and so took part with Him in making atonement 
for their own sins. This being the meaning and purpose of the 
word " alone," in the intent of the Founders, the teaching of this 
pantheistic theory of atonement by any Andover professor is 
debarred. This theory cannot be maintained and inculcated in 
this Seminary without a violation of compact and a criminal 
breach of trust. 

The "Central and Vital Principle" Characterized. 

A word more must be added as we take leave of this panthe- 
istic theory of atonement. We have thus far refrained from 
characterizing properly the notion which is really the soul and 
life of this whole theory of atonement, and of all the other dis- 
tinctive doctrines of Rellyanism and of "Progressive Ortho- 
doxy" ; namely, the notion of the vital union of all human beings 
with the person of Christ. We do not wish to speak with dis- 
respect of any one's serious religious convictions. But the 



246 Sixth Particular Complaint. 

questions we are discussing are not private or merely personal. 
The Church universal is interested in what is accepted and taught 
in Andover Theological Seminary, and ought to know the true 
character of that teaching. 

The regnant idea which lies back of that theory of atonement 
set forth in "Progressive Orthodoxy" and in Rellyism is not, 
as Professor Harris charges us with believing, that Christ in his 
Incarnation was "a real man." The professor knew perfectly 
well that we had made no complaint against him for holding that 
belief. The regnant error of which we speak is not that Christ 
was a member of the human race. It is not that He was omni- 
present, and so ivith every human being. It is not, that while all 
other men have their imperfections and lackings, Christ was per- 
fect at every point of his being and nature, and lacked nothing 
necessary to the absolute completeness of his manhood and char- 
acter, and therefore was himself the complement of every other 
man, and so in that sense the ideal man. 

The basal, erroneous, and all-pervading conception in the theory 
of atonement against which we enter complaint, is that all human 
beings who ever have lived or ever will live, were M with and in" 
Christ on the cross, united to Him by a " vital," living union, by 
an actual inclusion of themselves in his person. No member of the 
race was separate from Him. When He sorrowed in Gethsemane, 
the race in Him sorrowed. When He suffered on Calvary, the 
race suffered. This union is "organic," not like that of the several 
members of a family, of a tribe, of a race, but like that of the 
members of the human body with its head. In the head, in the 
body, and in the members there is but one life, one person. It 
has been the belief of some men, that the entire human race 
was literally in Adam, actually sinned in his sin, and fell with 
him. So, according to "Progressive Orthodoxy" and Rellyanism, 
the entire race was actually in Christ on the cross, and took part 
in his sufferings and death, and in making atonement for the sins 
of all men ; and also has been and is in Christ in all his condi- 
tions and experiences, sharing in all that He is, and feels, and 
does. 

Now it is difficult to find language to express what seems to us 
to be the grotesqueness and hideonsness of this conception. Think 
of all the billions of human beings who lived on the earth before 



Sixth Particular Complaint. 247 

our time ; of all the millions now living ; and of all the billions 
yet to live ; all gathered together, and massed in one personality, 
falsely called Christ, and lifted upon the cross. Such a concep- 
tion of our Lord and Redeemer is monstrous. Others may speak 
for themselves, but such is not our adorable Saviour and King, 
nor is such the Christ of the Andover Creed and of Consistent 
Calvinism. This whole idea of the vital union and actual inclu- 
sion of the entire human race in one divine being is essentially 
and grossly heathen. The conception in its germ came from 
heathenism, not from Christianity. 

Pardon a personal reminiscence. Once in my childhood, I 
looked with a revulsion of feeling I have never forgotten upon 
a picture of a heathen god. The deity was represented as a 
huge monster, with a multiplicity of heads and faces and bodies, 
of arms and legs ; with uncounted hands and feet, eyes and ears, 
mouths and nostrils ; all massed together in a single huge and 
horrid personality. One would recoil from looking at it very 
much as he would recoil from looking at a mountain of live 
snakes. Something like this, to our view, only on an infinitely 
larger scale, is the representation that all human beings — the dead, 
the living, and all those yet to live — were massed in one person- 
ality, and then lifted upon a cross to suffer and die in atonement 
for all human sins. The whole conception is hideous and revolt- 
ing in the extreme. As a theory of atonement it is a theological 
monstrosity. Had such a grotesque idea been cherished only by 
darkened, heathen minds, it would not have been so surprising. 
But how such a revolting conception of our personal, glorious 
Redeemer could ever have been entertained for one moment by 
intelligent, educated minds, in a Christian land, in the nineteenth 
century, passes our comprehension. 

One thing is certain: the Christ of "Progressive Orthodoxy" 
and Rellyanism is not the Christ of the Andover Creed and of 
Consistent Calvinism. By no possible explanation can they be 
shown to be one and the same being. 

Man in "Progressive Orthodoxy." 

Nor is man as depicted in ' ' Progressive Orthodoxy " and 
Rellyanism the man described in the Andover Creed and Consistent 
Calvinism. Man impotent to do what God requires of him, and 



248 Sixth Particular Complaint. 

therefore committing no sin in not obeying God, — impotent to 
repent, to believe, to be holy ; powerless to feel any sorrow for 
his transgressions, and able only to point to Christ and give expres- 
sion to repentance in his repentance ; — man who is of no account 
in himself, and can attain to no eminent value in the sight of God, 
save through an imaginary vital union with another being, — man 
thus depicted is not the regal being described as man in the 
Andover Creed and in Consistent Calvinism. There he appears, 
sinful indeed, fallen and lost, yet even in his ruin a being of mag- 
nificent capabilities and possibilities ; abundantly competent to do 
all that God requires of him, and therefore immeasurably wicked 
because he will not obey his Maker ; having in himself transcend- 
ent value, possessed of a soul worth more than the whole world, 
so that the eternal Son of God loved him even in his moral ruin, 
and gave Himself for him. Man being such, standing forth 
alone in his personal responsibility to God, and in his high personal 
obligations to his fellow-men, giving evidence even in his apostasy 
of his kingly endowments and of the supernal destiny for which 
he was created, and which may yet be his, and so attesting the 
measureless value there is in himself , — man, being such, is not 
the pitiable, impotent, irresponsible, and worthless creature called 
man in " Progressive Orthodoxy." 

Now we submit that if Christ and man, as set forth in " Pro- 
gressive Orthodoxy," are not the Christ and man of the Andover 
Creed and of Consistent Calvinism, then "Progressive Orthodoxy" 
has no more legal or moral right to use the name Andover, or the 
prestige of that name, or the funds, buildings, and grounds of 
Andover, as the means of its own maintenance and promulgation, 
than any other form of Universalism, or any form of Infidelity 
or of Atheism has to use the same, as the means of its support 
and of its dissemination through the world. 



VII. 

FALLACIOUS ARGUMENTS 

In the Replies op the Defence. 

We now call special attention to two or three notable arguments 
made by the defence in answer to the charges presented by the 
complainants. 

False Assumption of the Founders' Ignorance. 

1. The defendant has taken the position, that the Founders of 
Andover Seminary were utterly ignorant of the question of " the 
personal relation of Christ to the entire race " ; and his reasoning 
from this assumption appears to be that, as the Founders never 
heard of this question, and knew absolutely nothing about it, he 
and his progressive associates may rightfully give in their teach- 
ing as professors any answer they choose to such an inquiry — 
may accept and teach, for instance, the central and dominating 
principle of "Progressive Orthodoxy," which is that all men 
exist in organic and vital union with the Lord Jesus. 

Professor Smyth's Remarkable Declaration. 

Professor Smyth at the close of his long defence, in his trial 
before the Board of Visitors in December, 1886, made the follow- 
ing astonishing statements : — 

It is idle to question that in all lands, in all evangelical churches to- 
day, the question of the personal relation of Christ to the entire race for 
which He died, is receiving an attention never before given to it. The 
Church at large has never yet passed upon it. It was not before the 
minds of the authors of the Catechism or of the Seminary Creed. It 
could not be. Providence shapes problems for the Church. It puts this 
one before us. It would be at least doubtful whether if the Creed con- 
tained some expressions which might be used to exclude the new doc- 
trine, it would not be an unwarrantable use of an incidental phrase, to 
make it interdictive and decisive of a question out of the purview of 
the framers. Fortunately there is no such difficulty to be settled. The 

249 



250 Fallacious Arguments, 

Creed admits by its silence and by its principles, at least as a legitimate 
inquiry, all that has been contended for by me in the Beview and in 
Progressive Orthodoxy. 1 

These are remarkable statements. As the professor read this 
passage before the Visitors there were some present who listened 
to him with a feeling of amazement. Dr. Smyth is Professor 
of Ecclesiastical History in Andover Theological Seminary. He 
has occupied that chair for about thirty years. The Statutes 
require that he should be " learned," — learned especially in his 
own department of instruction, accurate and trustworthy in his 
presentation of historical facts. During these thirty years he has 
had ample time and every facility needed to make himself famil- 
iar with the history of Christian doctrine and of its conflicts with 
religious error in many lands, including Old England and New 
England. We cannot help saying, partly in his own language, 2 
"he knows, or is inexcusable if he does not know," that at the 
very time Andover Seminary was being founded and the Andover 
Creed was being written, John Murray was preaching Rellyanism 
in Boston, and had been preaching it for the most part in eastern 
Massachusetts for nearly forty years. Professor Smyth "knows 
or ought to know," that Rellyanism is one form of Universalism, 
and that in its germinal and organic principle it is pantheistic ; 
that it is bitterly inimical to evangelical faith, and particularly to 
Consistent Calvinism ; that it was strenuously opposed by evan- 
gelical clergymen under the lead of the Wesleys in England in 
the last century, and in this country in the last and in the early 
part of the present century was opposed with equal resoluteness 
by evangelical clergymen under the lead of such men as Dr. 
Samuel Hopkins, Dr. Jonathan Edwards the younger, President 
Ezra Stiles, and Dr. Nathanael Emmons. Professor Smyth 
"knows full well, or is inexcusable if he does not know," that 
the supreme question raised by Rellyanism was exactly this "of 
the personal relation of Christ to the entire race for which He 
died"; that James Relly and his disciple, John Murray, held, 
that all men, believers and unbelievers, the penitent and the im- 
penitent, the most godly and the most wicked, the most heathen 
and the most civilized, the living and the dead, — that all mem- 
bers of the human race alike are "in Christ," and that Christ is 

1 The Andover Defence, p. 179. 2 See The Andover Defence, pp. 102, 103. 



Fallacious Arguments. 251 

in every human being, united to him by an organic and vital 
union, a union not like that by which one member of the race 
is united to every other member, but like that which, in the 
human form, unites the body and all its members to their head; 
and that the evangelical opponents of Relly and Murray held, 
that this notion of the vital union of all men with the Lord 
Jesus, or of the actual inclusion of the entire human race in 
the person of Christ, was absolutely unscriptural and false, a 
pestilent and most harmful religious error. Professor Smyth 
" knows, or ought to know," — and if he does not know, his com- 
petency in scholarship to fill his present chair may well be called 
in question, — that Dr. Samuel Hopkins spoke of this "notion" 
of the vital union of Christ with all mankind as " unreasonable " 
and " whimsical" ; that Dr. Jonathan Edwards the younger char- 
acterized this same "vital union," and the Rellyan theories that 
are naturally evolved from it, as " wild and confused mysticism" 
and " horrid doctrine " ; and that Dr. Nathanael Emmons, speak- 
ing of this same theory of the vital union of all mankind " with 
Christ through all the circumstances of his birth, life, death, 
resurrection and glory," declared that it " is repugnant to the 
plainest dictates of common sense," and that it "is as desti- 
tute of all support from divine revelation as from reason and 
common sense." Professor Smyth "knows, or ought to know," 
that the central and dominating principle of " Progressive Ortho- 
doxy," namely, the vital union of all mankind with Christ, is the 
central and dominating principle of Rellyanism, and that if that 
principle makes Rellyanism outright Universalism, it makes "Pro- 
gressive Orthodoxy " outright Universalism also. 4 We are thank- 
ful,' Gentlemen of the Board of Visitors, ' that it does not de- 
volve upon us to occupy your time in trying to explain why the 
professor has deemed it necessary in the professed interest of an 
honest, truthful, and scholarly setting forth of history,' to make 
the extraordinary historical statements which we have cited, to 
wit, that "the question of the personal relation of Christ to the 
entire race" "was not before the minds of the authors ... of 
the Seminary Creed," and that "It could not be" ; that it was "a 
question out of the purview of the framers " of the Creed, — 
historical statements " which he knows full well, or is inexcusable 
if he does not know, are baseless and false." 



252 Fallacious Arguments. 

The Question Well Known to the Founders. 
It is well known, if any historical fact is well known, that " the 
question of the personal relation of Christ to the entire race " was 
before the minds of the Founders, and within " the purview of 
the franiers " of the Creed. Indeed, they knew more about the 
" central and vital principle " of what is now called " Progressive 
Orthodoxy," but of what was then known as Rellyanism, than 
Professor Smyth himself appears to know ; for they knew the 
history of this speculative, pantheistic scheme in England and in 
this country, while this Professor of Ecclesiastical History seems 
to be profoundly ignorant of that history of Rellyanism. The 
Founders had seen this principle of the vital union of all mankind 
with the Lord Jesus carried out, by unschooled men, to its legiti- 
mate results, with a vigor and boldness of logic which should put 
to shame these timid and faltering progressives at Andover. The 
Founders saw Rellyanism not simply in its germ and early develop- 
ment, but also in its ghastly maturity, when its fruit had ripened, 
and men and churches had tasted of its bitterness. The progress- 
ives at Andover seem to be stone-blind to the harvest of evil that 
is coming of their own seed-sowing. This whole speculative 
scheme of pantheistic thought, which is as yet only partially, and 
with much vagueness and many inconsistencies, disclosed in 
"Progressive Orthodoxy," and in other writings of the Andover 
progressives, the Founders saw developed to a completeness in 
which its true character could no longer be concealed. Neverthe- 
less, the defendant, from his large knowledge as Professor of 
Ecclesiastical History, is fully persuaded that this notion of the 
vital relation of Christ to the entire human race is " new doc- 
trine," and therefore was not before the minds of the authors of 
the Creed ; and he reassures himself by the further dogmatic 
assertion, that " It could not be." Yet notwithstanding all this 
firm persuasion of his mind, "some expressions" in the Creed 
give him no little anxiety. What do these expressions mean? 
" Oh, nothing," the Professor seems to reply. " The Founders had 
no definite purpose in using these phrases. They could not possi- 
bly have intended to interdict our ' new doctrine,' for they never 
heard of it." "Providence," the Professor declares, "shapes 
problems for the Church. It puts this one before us. It would 
be at least doubtful whether if the Creed contained some expres- 



Fallacious Arguments. 253 

sions which might be used to exclude the new doctrine it would 
not be an unwarrantable use of an incidental phrase to make it 
interdictive and decisive of a question out of the purview of the 
framers. Fortunately there is no such difficulty to be settled." 
Indeed ! These are curious remarks, considered in view of the 
actual historical facts in the case. 

We say in reply: Fortunately there is just "such difficulty to 
be settled." Fortunately for the present protection of the Semi- 
nary and its funds from perversion, this question of " the per- 
sonal relation of Christ to the entire race" was not " out of the 
purview of the framers" ; it was directly before them, and received 
their most thoughtful and solicitous attention. Note these words 
of the defendant: " It would be at least doubtful whether if the 
Creed contained some expressions which might be used to exclude 
the new doctrine," etc. Why, there is nothing " doubtful" about 
it, and there is no " if " about it ! There are " some expressions " 
in the Creed — we have specified some of them and emphasized 
them — which were put in for the very purpose that they ' ' might 
be used to exclude ' the new doctrine.'" They are not aimless 
expressions, having no definite intent. Not one of them is an 
" incidental phrase," resulting from the innocent ignorance of the 
Founders. That phrase, " the Son of God, and He alone" ; the 
phrase, "personal requisites" ; that other phrase, " do in this life 
partake of justification, adoption, and sanctification," — those 
phrases, every one, are in the Creed for a purpose. They are not 
a-rrows shot at random, with no intention of hitting anything in 
particular, as the defendant thinks they are. They were aimed at, 
and were intended to pierce, the very core and heart of Rellyan- 
ism, now called "Progressive Orthodoxy." And they do pierce 
its heart through and through. Those phrases "incidental"! 
Those phrases unintended, and not to "be used to exclude the 
new doctrine " ! It might as well be said, that the patriotic shot 
fired at Concord and Lexington and heard round the world was 
unintended, merely incidental, and must not be regarded as 
designed to exclude British tyranny from the American colonies ! 
The definite purpose of that shot was to effect the death of British 
tyranny in this land, and it did effect the death of that tyranny. 
The definite purpose of the phrases we have cited from the An- 
dover Creed was to effect the death of Rellyanism in Andover 



254 Fallacious Arguments. 

Seminary, if it should ever dare to enter and take possession of 
this Institution. If this high purpose just now is ineffective, it 
is because the criminal usurpation of Rellyanism, for the time 
being, is triumphant here, and the sacred liberty of the Founders 
to do what they would with their own for the good of mankind is 
manacled — manacled too by the intolerance and tyranny of what 
styles itself broad and progressive Orthodoxy, but which is only 
another name for that rationalistic and intolerant liberalism which 
has always been the bitterest and most unscrupulous foe of evan- 
gelical and evangelistic faith, and a frequent menace to freedom 
in churches and educational institutions founded by orthodox 
people. 

Fallacious Argument of the Defendant. 

The argument of the defendant, in the passage which we have 
just cited, appears to be this : The Creed is silent upon this ques- 
tion of the personal relation of Christ to the entire human race. 
The Founders never heard of such a question. Therefore any 
professor has a perfect right to accept and teach this " new doc- 
trine " on the Andover Foundations. 

To this we reply : First, even if it were true that the Creed is 
silent upon this question, it would not by any means follow that a 
professor could legally and righteously hold and teach this doc- 
trine in Andover Seminary. The Creed is silent upon the Mormon 
Delusion. The Founders of the Seminary never heard of it. 
But does it follow from this, that any professor has full right and 
liberty, if he choose to do so, to teach and practise polygamy on 
the Andover Fouudations? The Creed is silent upon the subject 
of modern Spiritism. But does the mere fact of that silence 
make it lawful and right for a professor to hold and expound in 
this Seminary the doctrines of Spiritism? But, secondly, the 
Creed is not silent upon this question of the personal relation of 
Christ to the human race. In several expressions, as even the 
defendant half-admits, the Creed has special reference to this 
pernicious error. We have shown conclusively, as we believe, 
that the Founders made provision in their Statutes and Creed, 
abundantly adequate, as they supposed, to render it forever im- 
possible for any man, who has accepted the principles of Rellyan 
Universalism, to occupy a chair in Andover Seminary, without 



Fallacious Arguments. 255 

thereby becoming guilty of action which in the commercial world 
would be regarded as a crime, — a crime, too, for the commission 
of which a business man would at once be called to account in a 
court of justice. 

Criticisms in Place of Direct Answers to Charges. 

2. The defendant in his arguments has repeatedly represented 
that the complainants were unfair, and even dishonorable in their 
method of making citations in proof of the charges which they 
had preferred against himself and some of his associates. We 
do not now refer to the defendant's petty literary criticisms which 
we have already noticed, but to another kind of crimination. 
The complainants are repeatedly charged with wrenching quoted 
passages from their connections, and with not taking into account 
the preceding or the following context. Fault is found with the 
complainants because, in some instances, their citations were 
not more ample. Had they made more liberal quotations, it is 
claimed, they would have found statements which would relieve 
their distress, prove that their charge was groundless, and show 
that the defendant's belief is in accord with the Seminary Creed. 
The complainants are accused of grave delinquency in not quot- 
ing various passages which, in the judgment of the defendant, 
they ought to have quoted. More copious extracts from various 
parts of "Progressive Orthodoxy " would have counterbalanced 
the citations actually made, and have shown that the defendant is 
not at variance with the Creed. Such arguments as these are of 
frequent recurrence in the Professor's self-defence. In reply to 
them we would say : — 

(a) We have been told that there is no need of drinking the 
whole Atlantic Ocean in order to prove that its water is salt. A 
single taste is sufficient. So there is no need of quoting the 
whole volume entitled " Progressive Orthodoxy," and all the edi- 
torials of The Andover Review, in order to prove that the " New 
Theology," now maintained and inculcated by the defendant, is 
repugnant to the Andover Creed and Statutes. A few sentences 
are sufficient. 

(b) It has never been claimed by the complainants that there 
is no theological or Biblical truth in "Progressive Orthodoxy." 
Usually the chief power of religious error lies in its close alliance 



256 Fallacious Arguments. 

with more or less of admitted religious truth. But what occasion 
had the complainants to call attention to the wholly unobjection- 
able statements in "Progressive Orthodoxy"? Their sole pur- 
pose was to bring to the knowledge of the Visitors such portions 
of the writings of the defendant and of his progressive asso- 
ciates as were evidently in sharp conflict with the Creed and 
Statutes of the Seminary, and would serve as proof of a great 
perversion of trust-funds. Such portions of their writings, there- 
fore, were carefully selected, and their irreconcilable antagonism 
to the intention of the Founders, as expressed in their Statutes 
and Creed, was pointed out. If the passages selected do not 
demonstrate that the defendant is holding and teaching beliefs 
which are opposed to the doctrines set forth in the Seminary 
Creed, it is perfectly legitimate for the accused professor to show 
that they do not demonstrate this. But to upbraid the complain- 
ants for omitting to cite sentences and passages which do not 
antagonize the Creed and Statutes is on a par with the action of 
the criminal in court who, when the prosecuting attorney was de- 
picting with startling vividness the revolting details of his crime, 
cried out, "Why don't you tell some of the good things I've 
done?" The defendant in this case, sorely pressed by the pas- 
sages which we have cited against him, and utterly unable to 
explain them away, not knowing what else to do, cries out : 
" Why do you not cite some of the good passages which I have 
published, which contain no reference whatever to ' the new 
theology,' and which are in harmony with the Creed and Stat- 
utes of the Seminary ? " Such replies do not refute the charges. 

In Transitu. 

(c) It is difficult to understand some of the replies given and 
some of the arguments presented by the defendant in self- 
defence, without taking into account the fact, that the Andover 
progressives, in their theological beliefs, are confessedly in 
transitu. They are developing a "new theology," and at the 
same time, as they claim, are not relaxing their hold upon an old 
one. They have heartily accepted the central and regnant prin- 
ciple of Eellyanism, which is the vital union of the entire human 
race with Christ — a principle in their view " new," " central and 
vital," and utterly unknown to the Founders of the Seminary. 



Fallacious Arguments. 257 

They propose to follow the guidance of this principle whitherso- 
ever it may lead them. It is their intention apparently to devote 
themselves to the maintenance and propagation of this principle, 
to live for it, and, if need be, to die for it. But they are supported 
by the trust-funds of an institution which was founded for the 
express purpose of maintaining and inculcating the evangelical 
faith as expressed in the doctrines of Consistent Calvinism. 
These progressive professors, therefore, progress or retrograde as 
much as they will, are bound to keep their faith in some sort of 
connection with the Seminary Creed, to which, as a condition of 
holding their professorships, they have pledged their undeviating 
loyalty. Such is their present position. They are on their way 
to another theology, one confessedly " new " to them, though it 
was certainly well known to the Founders. Yet at the same time 
they are also vainly attempting to hold on, in their belief, to 
Christian doctrines, with which they can no longer in consistency 
have any sympathy, as these doctrines can no more be made to 
mingle and coalesce with their new beliefs than water and oil can 
be made to mingle and coalesce. 

Timidity of the Andover Progressives. 

Now one of the results of their being in this state of transition 
in their theological beliefs, while holding professorships in An- 
dover Seminary, is a certain very natural, and probably unavoid- 
able timidity. They seem to be living in mortal fear of some 
kind of exposure. They proclaim themselves great lovers of 
" new light," yet, strange to say, to walk in the light appears to 
them no desirable thing to do. Apparently they dread all investi- 
gation of their present theological position. They eschew ex- 
aminations of all kinds. After long and persistent effort, they 
have at last succeeded in procuring the abolition of the public 
spring examination in the Seminary, which heretofore has been the 
chief of the two examinations held each year. They dread, how- 
ever, as they dread nothing else, all official investigation of their 
religious beliefs, especially if that investigation is to be conducted 
by the Board of Visitors. At the thought of such a trial, their 
usual timidity appears to change instantly into u a certain fearful 
looking for of judgment and fiery indignation " which will surely 
devour them ; and upon the least apprehension of such a trial 



258 Fallacious Arguments. 

they set themselves at once and with all vigor to the work of 
resisting and preventing the investigation at any cost of time, toil, 
and treasure. 

Dread of Definitions. 

Another result of their being consciously in such a transition 
state in their religious faith is their extreme reluctance to give 
any definitions of the theological terms and phrases which they 
use, still less of the new doctrines which they hold and teach. 
In their view, apparently, to give a definition is to put their very 
lives in jeopardy. Ostensibly they propose to investigate and 
investigate, and to give definitions only at the end of their investi- 
gations. But it is looking more and more as if it were their in- 
tention never to reach the end of any investigation, and so never 
to be obliged to give any definitions. Their motto might well be : 
" Ever learning, but never able to come to the knowledge of 
the truth." Perhaps these progressive professors would not ob- 
ject to this motto, as it might seem to them to be expressive of 
prodigious and tireless thoroughness in their investigations ; but 
Paul applied these words to a class of men from whom he warned 
Timothy " to turn away." 

Neglect of Definitions Evasive and Deceptive. 

A third result of continuing in such a transition state in reli- 
gious belief, as the progressive professors are in at present, is the 
vicious habit of using undefined theological terms and phrases 
now in one sense and then in another, without giving the least 
intimation that such terms and phrases are used in more than one 
sense. Familiar religious phraseology is thus employed, when 
occasion calls for it, to express such evangelical truth as it has 
always been understood to express ; and the very same phrase- 
ology is also employed, when occasion calls for it, to express the- 
ological conceptions which are in irrepressible antagonism to 
evangelical faith. 

Perversion of Language. 

Consequently a fourth result of the present futile attempt of 
these progressive divines to accept and maintain the "new the- 
ology," and at the same time keep themselves in some sort of 



Fallacious Arguments. 259 

connection with the evangelical faith of the Andover Creed, is 
not only a large amount of inconsistency and self-contradiction 
in their writings, but also a certain indefensible vacillation in 
their use of words. 

For example, the word repentance is used by the progressive 
professors as designating now one thing, and now another thing. 
The word is usually understood as signifying what is called evan- 
gelical repentance, or the sinner's own personal turning from his 
sins with shame and sorrow for them. The Andover progressives 
at times use the word in this sense. But sometimes they use the 
word in a sense totally distinct from this, or as signifying a 
repenting of the sinner in Christ's repentance. The meaning is, 
that when Christ sorrows in view of human sin, the entire race, 
being vitally united to Him, and included in his personality, sor- 
rows also, though without any volition in the matter, or any con- 
sciousness of repenting. In this way the progressive divines 
empty familiar religious words of the meaning which they have 
always had, and put them to a new use, and so abuse and pervert 
language. People listening to a progressive preacher are often 
deceived. He uses common evangelical phraseology, and they 
deem him very orthodox ; when in fact he is discoursing about 
one thing and they are thinking about another thing. He may be 
preaching race-repentance, which is a doctrine of Rellyan Univer- 
salism, and they may suppose that he is speaking of the same 
kind of repentance which Christ and the apostles preached. 

Notice now another peculiar manner in which the defendant 
conducts his defence. 

Self-contradiction Practically Admitted by the Defendant. 

The authors of "Progressive Orthodoxy," in their discussion 
of the subject of repentance, declare in the most positive terms, 
that " man of himself cannot repent," but in union with Christ he 
can and does repent. In Him the race repents. These authors 
affirm, that " When Christ is sorrowful, the race is sorrowful." 
This is pure Rellyanism. It is outright Rellyan Universalism. 
Yet these same professors, in this same discussion, speak of men 
as being themselves, or personally, "stirred to penitence." And 
they declare of " man," that, "under the appropriate influences 
he is capable of repenting.' This is the theology of the Andover 



260 Fallacious Arguments. 

Creed. This is Consistent Calvinism. But such language is an 
absolute contradiction of the Rellyan theory of repentance, which, 
those same professors declare, is their accepted belief. 

Now how does the defendant in his elaborate defence explain 
this vacillation and self-contradiction ? He does not explain it at 
all. He practically admits and intensifies his inconsistency. The 
complainants charge him with teaching, contrary to the Creed, that 
man of himself cannot repent, but can repent in his union with 
Christ ; that when Christ repents every man repents. The de- 
fendant replies : ' Yes ; but I also teach that man of himself can 
repent. Under appropriate influences, he is capable of repent- 
ing.' Such is his argument in defence. All we need to say about 
it is that it is a complete self-stultification. It is playing fast 
and loose. It is giving with one hand and taking back with the 
other. 

"The Other View" of Atonement. 

Similar inconsistency is found in other parts of the professor's 
defence, as well as in various discussions in " Progressive Ortho- 
doxy." In treating of atonement, however, much self-contra- 
diction is sagaciously avoided by presenting only " one view of 
atonement," and simply remarking that there is another view 
which is so familiar that it need not be given in detail. The view 
presented proves to be the Rellyan theory of atonement. Had 
the authors of "Progressive Orthodoxy," and the defendant in 
his defence, made a full and honest statement of the " other 
view," that is, of the doctrine of atonement as defined and held 
by Consistent Calvinists, they would at once have involved them- 
selves in a perfect tangle of self-contradictions. There was a 
certain kind of wisdom in omitting to present " in detail " the other 
vieiv, as there is also in declining to define theological terms, and 
in using familiar evangelical phraseology to express religious con- 
ceptions which, if understood, would be abhorrent to all evangel- 
ical believers. But is this the wisdom " that is from above "? Is 
such wisdom worthy of an Andover professor? Such a method 
of introducing a " new theology " into Andover Seminary and of 
defending its introduction cannot be covered. From the first it 
has been unmasked to the eyes of all people of even ordinary 
theological information. The whole proceeding has awakened 



Fallacious Arguments. 261 

astonishment in multitudes of minds, and has been condemned 
even by liberals as well as by conservatives. An apparently can- 
did and judicial writer in The Universal ist Quarterly (January, 
1885) gives expression to the following plain judgment : — 

Already it is too evident that the New Orthodoxy is clinging to the 
words of the Old Orthodoxy after having cast aside all that these words 
meant and must mean to every veracious mind. 

Rev. Frederic Palmer's Criticism on " Progressive 
Orthodoxy." 

Even in The Andover Review (February, 1890) is found an 
Article designed to be a friendly criticism of " Progressive Ortho- 
doxy," in which the writer, Rev. Frederic Palmer, exposes, with 
no little plainness of speech, the inconsistencies and self-contra- 
dictions of the Andover progressives. He is abundantly com- 
petent to make such criticism upon their present theological 
position. He knows all the way over which they have traveled, 
and all the way they must yet travel if they are to follow the lead 
of their avowed guiding principle, for he has traveled all this way 
himself, and is now somewhat in advance of these progressive 
professors. He arraigns them for their inconsistency, in teaching 
the doctrine of the divine immanence in humanity, or of the life 
of God in every man (which divine life must make every human 
soul as safe from being lost as is God himself) , and at the same 
time teaching, in absolute opposition to this doctrine, their other 
pet dogmas, that no man can be saved without knowledge of 
Christ, and that " no man can be lost without having had knowl- 
edge of Christ," and that every man "sooner or later," " some- 
time and somewhere," if not in this world, then in the next, will 
have opportunity to know Christ. Mr. Palmer was probably not 
aware that all this is of the very essence of that Rellyan Univer- 
salism which was perfectly familiar to the Founders, and against 
the teaching of which they supposed they had forever protected 
their Seminary. Had he known this, he might have found some- 
thing else to criticize in these men besides their theological vacil- 
lations and self-contradictions. 

Mr. Palmer also justly reproves these progressive theologians 
for their failure to define the theological terms which they use. 
After giving some statement of their much-emphasized doctrine 



262 Fallacious Arguments. 

of the absolute necessity of "the knowledge of Christ" to the 
salvation of any man, and referring to their belief that God 
cannot be just unless He gives to every man " a chance to pass 
upon the claims of Jesus Christ," Mr. Palmer adds : — 

Nowhere is a plentiful lack of definitions. Apart from those we have 
mentioned, — what is meant by Christ? and what is meant by salvation? 
— Here are others : What constitutes a sufficient " knowledge of Christ"? 
What determines whether the opportunity for getting that knowledge 
was sufficient? What is " passing upon the claims of Christ "? ! 

Mr. Palmer had already charged, that in "Progressive Ortho- 
doxy " there is " a lack of definition of fundamental terms," and 
then had said, in words to which we now call special attention : — 

One would suppose that if nowhere else, yet in the discussion of 
eschatology, a definition would have been given, or would have been 
privately arrived at, of salvation. But in the chapter on this subject 
one looks in vain, not only for such a definition, but for any clear con- 
ception of it. . . . 

The same confusion hides in other phrases covering fundamental 
needs of thought: "The gospel," "accepting Christ," "faith," "na- 
ture," — it is assumed that these have no need of definition. And as 
two meanings are possible in each of these cases, confusion is inevi- 
table, especially since the real root of the difficulty is that Andover is 
dissatisfied with one meaning, and has abandoned it in feeling while 
still holding to it in thought. She has jumped off the boat without 
having reached the wharf. 2 [Italics ours.] 

Have Abandoned the Andover Creed. 

These professors are under stress of local conditions. They 
are undertaking to introduce a pantheistic theology into a Semi- 
nary founded to teach Consistent Calvinism. It is hazardous 
business. They have subscribed to a Calvinistic Creed, and have 
promised to be loyal to it and to maintain and inculcate its doc- 
trines. How about keeping that pledge? Such has been and is 
their predicament. In Mr. Palmer's graphic words, they are 
" dissatisfied with one meaning " of certain " fundamental terms" 
and ' ' have abandoned it in feeling while still holding to it in 
thought." They have " jumped off the boat without having 
reached the wharf." They have leaped clear of the Andover 
Creed and Consistent Calvinism, yet, as he thinks, they have 

1 Andover Review, Feb. 1890, p. 193. 2 Ibid, Feb. 1890, pp. 187, 188. 



Fallacious Arguments. 263 

not landed upon the doctrines of pantheistic Universalism. But 
if they have leaped from the boat, and yet have not reached the 
wharf, where are they? It has been some ten or a dozen years 
since they began the leap. Have they gone up into the skies, or 
are they floundering and drowning in the water ? Mr. Palmer's 
language is highly figurative, yet is clearly expressive of his con- 
viction that the Andover progressives have abandoned utterly and 
forever all evangelical faith. He does not know just where they 
are, but he knows where they are not. They are not on the 
Andover Creed. 

The Reply of the Andover Progressives. 

We come now to the significant fact, that the accused professors 
do not deny the truthfulness of Mr. Palmer's graphic representa- 
tion of their present plight. Indeed, they practically admit its 
truthfulness by attempting to account for and justify their course 
and their present predicament. In replying to the criticisms of 
Mr. Palmer they say : — 

These local conditions [referring to the strenuous opposition which 
had been manifested to the teaching of their "new theology" on the 
Andover Foundation and to their violent attacks upon the American 
Board], as we acknowledge without hesitancy, gave form and color, 
direction and spirit, to the movement. Much of the phraseology employed 
in discussion was used to make immediate connection with existing doctrines, 
which it was desired to supplement or to apply. 1 [Italics ours.] 

Mr. Palmer had severely criticized these professors for continu- 
ing to use, without definition, evangelical phraseology, when they 
had abandoned the evangelical faith which that phraseology ex- 
pressed. Their reply is, that under the stress of the conflict which 
they had raised, they found it necessary "to make immediate 
connection with existing doctrines," that is, with the doctrines 
"existing " in the Andover Creed ; and that in order to make this 
"immediate connection," they must needs use freely evangelical 
phraseology which in other circumstances they would not employ. 
This is no denial of Mr. Palmer's charge that they had abandoned 
evangelical faith, but it is a confession, that under pressure of 
circumstances they adopted a policy in action, the moral nature 
of which does not need to be characterized. 

1 Andover Review, April, 1890, p. 437. 



264 Fallacious Arguments. 

Present Theological Position of the Andover Progressives. 

It is evident, that the Andover progressives have leaped from 
the grand old ship of evangelical faith, which has braved the 
storms of all the Christian centuries and is now sounder and 
stancher than ever, but it is not so evident that they have failed 
to land upon the old, long-unused, decayed, and down-tumbling 
wharf of Rellyan Universalism. Apart from the critic's vivid 
imagery, the prosy fact seems to be, that these professors have 
not flown skyward, nor have they been struggling in the water, 
but during all these years they have been trying to stand with one 
foot on the stanch old ship of evangelical faith, and the other 
foot on the crazy and tottering old wharf of Rellyan Universal- 
ism. The exhibition they have made of themselves has not been 
creditable. Their posture has been that of a straddle, so called, 
which is not a savory word even when used in the sphere of low 
politics. Their attempt has been to be at one and the same 
time on both sides of the great religious questions at issue between 
evangelical faith and pantheistic Universalism. Moreover, they 
are not crossing over from unbelief to evangelical faith. Their 
" movement," of which they talk so much, is in the opposite 
direction. It is from evangelical faith to unevangelical beliefs 
and speculations. They are not supplementing the " existing 
doctrines " of the Andover Creed and Consistent Calvinism, but 
are opposing those doctrines. They are not ' applying ' them to 
anything. They are applying the pantheistic principle of the 
vital union of all men with Christ to various evangelical truths, 
with the result that the faith of many in such truths is destroyed 
It is impossible to believe that they are unaware of this. They 
understand what they are doing. 

They know, too, whither they are bound. But it is not wise to 
reach their goal at a single leap. In existing circumstances it is 
more prudent to keep up " connections " with the old faith. Doing 
this they will be able to spring quickly back and forth, from one 
side to the other of the vital questions in controversy. Self- 
defence is thus made easy. When conservatives, like the 
complainants, attack them, they can hold up sample after sample 
of their orthodox words, phrases, and sentences, and waving 
them exultingly in the air cry, ' See, how orthodox we are ! Look 
at these repeated declarations of our faith, and know that we are 



Fallacious Arguments. 265 

squarely on the Andover Creed ! ' When liberals like Mr. Palmer 
attack them and charge them with holding on to evangelical 
words and phrases when they have abandoned their only legitimate 
meaning, they can hold aloft sample after sample of Universalistic 
and pantheistic phraseology, and cry, c See how liberal we are, 
and what prodigious advances we have made ! "We are not so 
far behind you as you seem to think. As to these old evangelical 
terms, we do, indeed, use them now and then, not, however, 
because we like to use them or accept the beliefs which they 
have always expressed, but simply because in present circum- 
stances it is wise " to make connection with existing doctrines." ' 
These replies of the Andover progressives are virtually an 
admission of the truth and justness of our charge, that they are 
not only in a transition state, and are moving from the Andover 
Creed to pantheistic theories, but have also adopted the policy of 
playing fast and loose, of being now on one side and now on the 
other side of the great religious questions at issue, or, as Mr. 
Palmer expresses it, of taking " back with one hand what they 
give with the other. " While we do not affirm that these progress- 
ive divines, in adopting such a course of action, are conscious of 
doing anything morally wrong, yet we are bound to say, that if 
they are not sensible of any admonitions of conscience, it is a 
u new departure " of a most extraordinary type in human expe- 
rience. We also say, that this " taking back with one hand what 
is given with the other," considered either as a method of con- 
cealing the antagonism of " Progressive Orthodoxy " to the 
Andover Creed, or as a method of self -justification on the part of 
the defendant, is an absolute failure ; and that the moral character 
of such a procedure is absolutely indefensible. 

" According to the Best Light God Shall Give Me." 

3. A third fallacious argument of the defence must now be 
noticed. Nothing in the Constitution, in the Statutes, or in the 
Creed of Andover Seminary has been made more prominent in 
the arguments of the defence in this Andover Case than that 
single clause, now so familiar to the public, " according to the 
best light God shall give me." The defendant has been more 
wary than some of his legal counsel in the use of this phrase. 
He so refers to it, however, as to make the impression that it 



266 Fallacious Arguments. 

contains something of the greatest importance to the defence, yet 
he never makes the least allusion to its grammatical position in 
the Statute of which it is a part, nor to its actual force and mean- 
ing. He gives great emphasis to this clause, repeatedly quotes it, 
prints it in italics, once at least in capital letters, and thus indi- 
cates that in some way it has a most significant and decisive 
bearing upon his right to follow all " new light," and to introduce 
the " new theology " into Andover Seminary. 

One of Professor Smyth's legal counsel, Theodore C. Dwight, 
Esq., made still larger use of this fragment of a sentence. He 
was also more frank and positive in declaring its meaning, and its 
bearing upon the question of the rights and liberties of the pro- 
fessors. He discussed the clause at considerable length and 
boldly took the ground, that it gives to every professor full lib- 
erty to use Andover Seminary and all its funds for the propaga- 
tion of any new light, or new doctrine, which he may think he has 
discovered, irrespective of its accordance or discordance with the 
intention of the Founders as expressed in their Creed and Stat- 
utes. This learned New York lawyer quoted some of the grand 
and deservedly famous sentences of John Robinson respecting our 
liberty and duty to accept any new light or truth that may come to 
us from God's Word, and then interpreted the clause, " according 
to the best light God shall give me," as affirming the liberty of 
every professor in Andover Seminary to follow the teaching of 
John Robinson, and accept any new light, and teach, by aid of 
the Andover funds, any new doctrine, which, in his judgment, has 
come to him from the Scriptures. Ex-Governor Gaston likewise, 
in his argument for the defence, interpreted the phrase, " best 
light," as if it meant " new light," new doctrine, and interpreted 
the whole clause as if it gave to every professor " a certain degree 
of liberty " to decide for himself what doctrines he shall promul- 
gate by aid of the Andover Seminary and funds. 

By means of such interpretations and statements as these, which 
have been caught up and continually repeated by the secular 
papers, the impression has gone abroad, that there is one sentence 
or declaration in the Andover Constitution or Statutes which 
somehow secures to every professor full right and liberty to use 
his own judgment in deciding what doctrines he shall maintain 
and teach by aid of the Andover endowments ; that it is, indeed, 



Fallacious Arguments. 267 

a fundamental law of the Institution, that every professor shall 
first of all be loyal to all the " new light" that comes to him, and 
that consequently the new-departure professors are doing nothing 
inconsistent with the Constitution and Statutes of the Seminary, 
or with their own promises and contracts, in introducing a " new 
theology" into the Seminary, even though it be in irrepressible 
conflict with some of the doctrines of the Andover Creed. 

This famous clause, " according to the best light God shall give 
me," can be understood only as it is seen in its relations to its 
context. The passage in which it occurs contains the sacred 
promises which every professor makes, once in every five years, in 
connection with a solemn declaration of his belief in all the doc- 
trines of the Creed. This passage immediately follows the Semi- 
nary Creed, and is as follows : — 

The Declaration. 
And furthermore I do solemnly promise that I will open and explain 
the Scriptures to my Pupils with integrity and faithfulness ; that I will 
maintain and inculcate the Christian faith, as expressed in the Creed, by 
me now repeated, together with all the other doctrines and duties of our 
holy Religion, so far, as may appertain to my office, according to the 
best light God shall give ine, and in opposition, not only to Atheists and 
Infidels, but to Jews, Papists, Mohammedans, Arians, Pelagians, Anti- 
nomians, Arminians, Socinians, Sabellians, Unitarians and Universal- 
ists ; and to all heresies and errors, ancient or modern, which may be 
opposed to the Gospel of Christ, or hazardous to the souls of men \ 
that by my instruction, counsel, and example, I will endeavor to pro- 
mote true Piety and Godliness ; that I will consult the good of this In- 
stitution, and the peace of the Churches of our Lord Jesus Christ on 
all occasions ; and that I will religiously conform to the Constitution and 
Laws of this Seminary, and to the Statutes of this Foundation. 

This passage, which is a statutory statement of the promises 
which every professor must make once in every five years, was 
called by the Founders, in order to distinguish it from the Creed 
with which it is immediately connected, " The Declaration "; and 
the two were spoken of as " the Creed and Declaration." This 
paragraph was doubtless thus designated because it is a declara- 
tion, on the part of the Founders, of the promises which they 
require every professor to make ; and also, when repeated by a 
professor, is a declaration on his part of the promises which he 
makes as a condition of his holding a professorship in Andover 



268 Fallacious Arguments. 

Seminary. This Declaration, as found in the Statutes of the 
Associate Foundation, was taken for the most part from Article 
XII of the Constitution of the Seminary. The clause which we 
are considering and its immediate context are substantially the 
same in the Constitution and in the Associate Statute. 

The Clause Interpreted. 

In view of the " Declaration," now quoted in full, the truth of 
the following statements must be conceded : — 

(a) In this notable clause, "according to the best light God 
shall give me," nothing whatever is said about " new light," or 
" new doctrine." Mention is made of " the best light," but " the 
best light" may be old light. It is not necessarily " new light." 
The easy coolness with which it has been assumed that the phrase 
"best light" is equivalent to the phrase "new light" is charac- 
teristic of the logic of the defence. It would be as legitimate to 
claim, that every Andover professor is authorized and required 
to accept and teach the old light or the old doctrine, and then to 
present, printed in capital letters, the statutory clause we are now 
considering, as in some mysterious manner proving such claim, as 
it is to claim that every Andover professor is authorized and re- 
quired to accept and teach " the new light " or " new doctrine of 
to-day," and then present, printed in capitals, the same statutory 
clause as in some mysterious way proving that claim. 

(b) Nothing is said in this statutory clause about " the right" 
or "the liberty" of the professors to maintain and inculcate any 
" new truth" or " new doctrine," which, as they may conceive, 
has come to them from the Holy Scriptures. It has been strangely 
assumed, that because John Robinson, John Milton, and other 
great advocates of religious liberty uttered some grand words 
about the right and duty of all Christians to accept such "new 
light" as may break upon their minds from the Word of God, it 
must be perfectly just and proper, that this famous clause in the 
Andover Statutes should be so interpreted as to give to the An- 
dover professors full liberty to enter into solemn engagements to 
maintain and inculcate the doctrines of the Andover Creed, and 
then, at their own sweet will, to break their engagements and 
begin to teach " new doctrines " which are in absolute antagonism 
to those of the Seminary Creed ; and this, when there is not one 



Fallacious Arguments. 269 

word in that statutory clause having the remotest reference to 
"religious rights" and "liberties." Would John Robinson, or 
John Milton, or any other great defender of religious freedom, 
have advocated such infamous liberty as this — liberty to break 
solemn promises and to be false to a great trust voluntarily 
assumed? 

(c) In this entire " Declaration" there is not a single sentence 
or clause which authorizes a professor to maintain and teach any 
doctrine or speculation, new or old, which antagonizes the Semi- 
nary Creed, or opposes the doctrines of Consistent Calvinism. It 
has been claimed, or at least implied, that there is a clause here 
which will allow a professor to do this. It is the clause, "to- 
gether with all the other doctrines and duties of our holy reli- 
gion." Every professor in taking the Creed, and in making the 
promises included in the Declaration, says : — 

I will maintain and inculcate the Christian faith, as expressed in the 
Creed by me now repeated, together with all the other doctrines and duties 
of our holy Religion, so far as may appertain to my office. 

At a hasty and careless reading it may possibly seem that in 
one clause of this sentence a professor actually promises to teach 
doctrines which not only are not in the Creed, but also may be 
opposed to the Creed and to Consistent Calvinism. But does he 
make such a promise? Not at all. Notice the language. Every 
professor promises to " maintain and inculcate the Christian faith 
as expressed in the Creed," " together with all the other doctrines 
and duties" — not "together with all other doctrines," — but 
" together with all the other doctrines and duties of our holy Reli- 
gion." Whose holy religion? "Of our holy Religion"; the 
holy religion of the Founders, and of those who were of the 
same faith with themselves ; that is, the holy religion of Consist- 
ent Calvinists. That little word " our" should be printed large, 
so large that no Andover professor or Trustee can ever again fail 
to see it. When the Founders put into this Statute the phrase, 
" all the other doctrines of our holy religion," they did not mean 
all the doctrines of the holy religion of Mohammedans, or of 
Unitarians, or of Rellyan Universalists, or of semi-pagan panthe- 
ists. This phrase, "ow?* holy religion," when written by the 
Associate Founders, meant the holy religion of Consistent Cal- 



270 Fallacious Arguments. 

vinists. And when a professor to-day repeats that phrase in 
solemn promise, he has no legal or moral right to mean anything 
different from what the Founders meant. The Founders were 
not so near idiocy that they required every professor on their 
foundation to promise solemnly, first, that he would maintain and 
inculcate " the Christian faith as expressed" in their own Creed; 
and then to promise, secondly, that he would also maintain and 
inculcate all doctrines of any other creed which he might prefer, 
however opposed they might be to the Seminary Creed. That 
little word "our" brings the promissory clause in which it 
stands into perfect harmony with all the other promises, with the 
entire Creed, and with all the Statutes of the Seminary. 

(d) The clause, " according to the best light God shall give 
me," is a qualifying clause. It has adverbial force. It tells how 
something is to be done. But it does not qualify the promissory 
declaration, " I do solemnly promise that I will open and explain 
the Scriptures to my pupils with integrity and faithfulness." It 
has been claimed that this famous adverbial clause does qualify 
that promise. This claim has been put forth by one professor 
and by one trustee, both of whom have defended and aided to the 
extent of their ability the theological revolution now in progress 
in Andover Seminary. (See Andover Defence, p. 305, and " The 
Creed of Andover Theological Seminary. By Rev. D. T. Fiske, 
d.d.," p. 8.) But this claim is fallacious. The adverbial clause 
is not attached to this first promise. It is attached to the second 
promise, and the second promise comes between this clause and 
the first promise. (See the Declaration quoted above.) The 
plain rules of grammar forbid the interpretation which comes 
from making this clause added to the second promise qualify also 
the first promise. To urge this construction is to wrest language, 
to misrepresent the intention of the Founders, to ascribe to them 
such self-contradiction and folly as they were never guilty of, and 
to represent that they deliberately allowed, and even required, 
professors to make a promise, the faithful fulfilment of which 
might defeat all the grand and unmistakable purposes for which 
the Seminary was founded. 

Why has this fallacious claim been urged ? The motive has not 
been stated. But whatever the motive may have been, one thing 
is certain : if the promise to be made by professors is this, " I 



Fallacious Arguments. 271 

will open and explain the Scriptures to my pupils with integrity 
and faithfulness," " according to the best light God shall give me" 
then a professor may go into his lecture room and say, or may 
say in his publications : "I have promised to explain the Scriptures 
with integrity and faithfulness according to the best light God shall 
give me, and on my honor, explaining the Scriptures with integrity 
and faithfulness, I must affirm that, ' according to the best light 
God noiv gives me,' the most destructive criticism of the Scriptures 
of which I ever heard does not go too far. Accordingly, I believe 
and teach that the Bible is nothing but so much paper and ink ; 
that there are no words, or teachings, or so-called revelations in 
the Bible which can truthfully be said to have any divine author- 
ity whatever. The Bible abounds in errors of all kinds, and 
therefore is untrustworthy as a rule of faith and practice. I 
myself, however, and others like me, in our superior and reverent 
scholarship, are abundantly competent to amend the Scriptures 
and correct all the blunders of ignorant prophets and unscholarly 
apostles. The man Jesus amended the Scriptures, therefore I 
can. If the apostle Paul had the mind of Christ, so have I. If 
apostles out of their own Christian consciousness evolved holy 
Scripture, I can evolve the same out of my Christian consciousness. 
As to the authority of the Bible, I have this to say : that all Scrip- 
tures of the Old and New Testaments must bring their credentials 
and submit them to the test of the truth that is in my heart and 
my mind. If the Scripture thus presented to me for authentica- 
tion be truth, I shall decide that it is truth, and then it will have 
authority ; not, however, because it came from prophets, or apostles, 
or even from Christ himself, but because I have said it is truth." 
Any professor, we say, if so disposed, may lawfully proclaim 
and teach such radical and revolutionary infidelity as this in An- 
dover Seminary, if he be allowed to make the proposed amended 
promise: "I will open and explain the Scriptures to my pupils 
with integrity and faithfulness, according to the best light God shall 
give me." And -thus this sacred Seminary, which was founded to 
maintain the truth and divine authority of the Holy Scriptures, 
4 'in opposition ... to Infidels," may be used in the spirit of 
Voltaire to destroy their truth and divine authority, and to blot 
the Bible itself out of existence, under the plea that this is 
" reverent and tolerant scholarship." 



272 Fallacious Arguments. 

To "open the Scriptures" is to give an exposition of them. 
To " explain" the Scriptures includes something more than expo- 
sition ; it is to account for them, to tell what they are, and 
whence they came. The amendment recently introduced by a 
trustee and a professor into the Declaration of the Founders is to 
the effect, that every professor shall account for the Scriptures 
and decide the questions of their origin and divine authority 
" according to the best light God shall give him." 

This amendment is of the nature of an addition to a Statute. 
It is adding to a statutory sentence a modifying clause which the 
Founders never annexed to that sentence. That the change thus 
proposed is radical and revolutionary cannot be denied. Whether 
this amendment be introduced by inadvertence or by deliberate 
intention, the effect will be the same. It opens a wide door to 
any amount of the most destructive criticism of the Bible, and 
prepares the way for the defeat of the chief purposes of the 
Founders in the establishment of their Seminary. 

It may be said in reply by the defendant and his progressive 
supporters that the transposition of this modifying clause, and 
the annexation of it to the first promise in the Declaration of the 
Founders, were not intended to be an amendment of the Statute, 
but only an interpretation of the language of the Statute. To 
this we answer, that if such an "interpretation" be accepted 
and acted upon by the Trustees and Faculty of the Seminary, the 
radical and revolutionary effect will be precisely the same that it 
would have been if the Statute had been amended by the inser- 
tion of the modifying clause immediately after the first promise 
in the Declaration. The cardinal purposes of the Founders in the 
establishment of their Seminary may be as completely defeated 
by such an ' ' interpretation " of the Statute as by such an 
"amendment" of it. This proposed change of the Statute, 
whether it be called an amendment or a new interpretation, would 
present an almost resistless temptation to some men, if they were 
professors in this Seminary, to revolutionize the instruction and 
character of the Institution. Especially would this temptation 
be powerful at a time like this, when the pride of rationalistic and 
speculative scholarship and the spirit of destructive criticism are 
rampant. But the statutory Declaration, as framed by the Found- 
ers, offers no such temptation to any professor, not even to one 



Fallacious Arguments. 273 

who might have the frenzied and "bitterly destructive spirit of 
Eobert Ingersoll. 

Again it may be said, in reply, by the defendant and his sup- 
porters, that no Andover professor will ever put himself into such 
a position of extreme antagonism to the Bible as ' ' the Word 
of God," for the reason that he has solemnly affirmed his belief 
in the divine and supreme authority of the Scriptures, by saying 
in the language of the Seminary Creed, — 

I believe . . . that the word of God, contained in the Scriptures of 
the Old and New Testament, is the only perfect rule of faith and 
practice. 

To this we answer, that a professor's assent to the said state- 
ment of the Creed will not necessarily be any safeguard against 
his antagonism to the divine origin and supreme authority of the 
Scriptures ; for he may take the position, that in this case we 
have one of the " inconsistencies" alleged by the defence to be 
found in the Creed and Declaration ; that the first promise in the 
Declaration, as he reads it, and the statement in the Creed respect- 
ing the perfection of the Scriptures, are in irreconcilable conflict 
each with the other ; that no man can consistently at one and the 
same time assent to the said Creed-statement and make the said 
promise of the Declaration ; that consequently he has a right to 
choose which he will discard ; and that he prefers to discard the 
Creed-statement of the divine authority of the Scriptures, and 
make the promise required of him ; for then he will be able, in 
all good conscience, to explain the Scriptures ' according to the 
best light God gives him,' and in square opposition " to the best 
light God gave " the Founders when they wrote their Creed. Such 
a professor will be greatly encouraged to make this choice, and 
so put himself into conflict with the Creed, by the fact that the 
President of the Board of Trustees has publicly instructed him : 

That the Original Founders desired above all things that the Scriptures 
should be faithfully opened and explained by the Professors " according 
to the best light God should give them. 1 

This extraordinary explanation and instruction respecting the 
supreme desire of the Original Founders has already been cited 
by defendant professors as an authoritative interpretation of the 
Statute, and as fully justifying their present attempt to revolu- 
1 The Creed of Andover Theological Seminary, p. 8. 



274 Fallacious Arguments. 

tionize the theological instruction of the Seminary. Such an offi- 
cial statement of the desire and intent of the Founders would 
naturally be regarded by a reckless liberal professor as giving 
him full warrant to teach his pupils, if he should be disposed to 
do so, that ' according to the best light God gives him,' the Creed- 
statement of the Founders concerning the divine origin and 
authority of the Scriptures is absolutely false, that the Bible is 
not "The Word of God," and is not u the only perfect rule of 
faith and practice." 

But fortunately the President of the Board of Trustees is not 
the " constitutional interpreter" of the Statutes of Andover Semi- 
nary. His opinion respecting the desires and intention of the 
Founders has no more legal authority than that of any other man. 
The Visitors, and they alone, are the " constitutional interpret- 
ers" of the Andover Statutes. The Founders never entrusted 
this high function to the President of the Board of Trustees, nor 
to any other trustee, nor to all the trustees ; but, by Statute, 
authority is given to the Board of Visitors, and only to that 
Board, " to determine, interpret and explain the Statutes." It is 
more than fortunate, also, it is a matter for devout thanksgiving 
to God in the present emergency, that no professor, no trustee, 
not even the Board of Trustees, has any authority, legal or moral, 
to change, by addition or diminution, by transposition or substitu- 
tion, or in any other way, a single word, clause, or sentence in 
the Creed or Declaration, in the Constitution or in any Statute of 
the Seminary. It is made the special duty of the Board of Vis- 
itors to deal summarily with any attempt, by whomsoever made, 
to bring about any such change or amendment as has been 
recently proposed in the ''Creed and Declaration." The Board 
of Visitors was established and endowed with great powers, for 
the very purpose of preventing any u perversion" or " the small- 
est avoidance of the true design " of the Founders as expressed 
in the Constitution and Statutes of the Seminary. Special Vis- 
itorial fidelity is enjoined in guarding the Creed from all mutila- 
tion or alteration, by whomsoever attempted. Article XXVII of 
the Associate Statutes declares : — 

It is strictly and solemnly enjoined, and left in sacred charge, that 
every article of the above said Creed shall forever remain entirely and 
identically the same, without the least alteration, addition or diminution. 



Fallacious Arguments, 275 

But the recent transposition of the clause, " according to the 
best light God shall give me," from the place assigned to it by 
the Founders, and the attachment of it to another sentence to 
which the Founders did not attach it, is undeniably an " altera- 
tion" of the " Declaration," — an "alteration," too, which, if 
accepted by a professor of the higher, destructive criticism, will 
encourage him to claim the right to subscribe to the Creed, while 
he rejects in toto the Creed-statement of the divine origin and 
supreme authority of the Holy Scriptures, and rejects also several 
other fundamental doctrines of the Creed and of Consistent Cal- 
vinism. This astonishing claim may be grounded upon alleged 
inconsistency between the Declaration and the Creed. The result 
of making and justifying this claim may be, that the said pro- 
fessor will not only refuse to teach doctrines of the Creed which 
he has promised to teach, but will also maintain and inculcate 
Universalism, or Unitarianism, or any other of the errors which 
he has solemnly promised to oppose. 

(e) But while the clause, " according to the best light God 
shall give me," does not modify the first, it does modify the 
second, promise in the Declaration. Every professor, in connec- 
tion with his assent and subscription to the Creed, makes the 
following declaration : — 

I do solemnly promise . . . that I will maintain and inculcate the 
Christian faith, as expressed in the Creed by me now repeated, together 
with all the other doctrines and duties of our holy religion, so far as 
may appertain to my office, according to the best light God shall give me, 
and in opposition to [thirteen specified errors] and to all heresies and 
errors, ancient or modern, which may be opposed to the Gospel of 
Christ, or hazardous to the souls of men. 

The True Intent of the Clause. 

What now are the purpose and meaning of this oft-repeated 
clause, " according to the best light God shall give me"? 

1. It may need to be said again by way of emphasis, that 
there is not one word in this clause about " new light," or 
"loyalty to the new light," or " new doctrine," or about a pro>- 
fessor's " right " and " liberty " to accept and teach " new theol- 
ogy " on the Andover Foundations. We submit to the judgment 
of all intelligent and candid men, that this modifying clause can 
never be legitimately and honestly quoted in defence of promul- 



276 Fallacious Arguments. 

gating, by aid of the Andover Seminary and funds, any new doc- 
trines which are opposed to the Seminary Creed, and are known 
to have been abhorrent to the Founders. 

2. This much-emphasized clause is the second of three succes- 
sive modifying clauses. The first of these, " so far as may 
appertain to my office," needs no comment. In the third, the 
professors promise that they will maintain and inculcate all the 
designated doctrines " in opposition to" various religious errors. 
This third and most vital modification of the second promise in 
the Declaration has seldom been cited, or even referred to, by the 
legal counsel and other supporters of the defendant. Over aud 
over, and with great gusto, they quote the words, often printing 
them in capitals, "according to the best light God shall give 
me"; but they stop with the word "me," thus making the im- 
pression that the Founders added no other modification to the 
second promise, and that these words about " the best light" do in 
some mysterious way give to every Andover professor full liberty 
to accept and promulgate any "new light " which may come to 
him, even though it may prove to be (under a new name) Rellyan 
Universalism or Unitariauism or any other of the errors specified 
or indicated in this third and most important modifying clause. 

3. But indispensable as is this third modification to a true under- 
standing of the second modification and of the whole intention 
of the Founders, it has been kept by the defence in the back- 
ground, and the second modification has been constantly pushed 
to the front. The words " according to the best light God shall 
give me," have been again and again " wrenched from their con- 
nections," and worked for all they were supposed to be worth in 
support of the right of the defendant to promulgate " new light" 
in the form of a" new theology" by means of the funds and the 
prestige of Andover Seminary. 

But what are the import and purpose of this second modifying 
clause ? Every professor promises that he ' ' will maintain and 
inculcate " certain carefully designated doctrines ' according to 
the best light God shall give him.' This clause was .intended to 
qualify the verbs " will maintain and inculcate." Its whole and 
only purpose was to designate the manner in which professors 
should " maintain and inculcate"* certain definitely prescribed doc- 
trines. Plainlv such was the intent of the Founders in the inser- 



Fallacious Arguments. 277 

tion of this clause, and they had no other intent. They never 
dreamed of its being used by a professor in defence of his 
alleged right to substitute his own " new light " in the place of the 
designated doctrines he has promised to teach, and to teach too in 
the very best manner possible. The purpose of the Founders was 
to secure from every professor a promise given as by oath, that 
he would teach the very doctrines which they had prescribed in 
their Statutes, and teach them too according to the best light, 
according to the best knowledge and wisdom God should give 
him. But in exacting this promise, the Founders give to their 
professors no authority whatever to teach any other than the pre- 
scribed doctrines. The promise itself is a bar to their teaching 
any doctrines which are in the least degree inconsistent with those 
prescribed in the Statutes of the Seminary. 

If a president-elect of the United States, in taking his official 
oath, should solemnly swear that he would execute all the laws of 
the United States, " so far as may appertain to his office, accord- 
ing to the best light God should give him," it would by no means 
follow that he is authorized by that oath to discard the laws of 
the United States, and execute in their place new laws of his own 
invention and creation under the specious plea that his new laws 
are less antiquated, more advanced, and every way better than 
the old ones. Such action on his part would be insufferable 
usurpation and tyranny. For such a crime a President would 
be impeached, and forthwith removed from office. Now every 
Andover professor solemnly promises to maintain and inculcate all 
the doctrines which are carefully prescribed by Creed and Statutes, 
4 according to the best light God shall give him,' and to oppose 
all antagonistic doctrines ; but it by no means follows that he is 
authorized by that promise to discard these same carefully pre- 
scribed doctrines, and to maintain and inculcate in their place new 
and opposing doctrines of his own invention and creation, under 
the specious plea that these new doctrines are not antiquated, but 
are " higher," " larger," " more advanced," and every way better 
than those which he has religiously promised to maintain and in- 
culcate. Such action is an intolerable usurpation of authority, 
and a criminal breach of contract. The least required by the 
Statutes to be done with such a professor is, that he forthwith be 
removed from office. 



278 Fallacious Arguments. 

4. We add in the next place, that while the Founders require 
every professor to teach doctrines "other" than those of the 
Creed, so far as may appertain to his office, yet they do not leave 
it to the professor to determine what those "other doctrines" 
are. The strange claim has been put forth, that the Founders do 
leave the determination of this to the professors. It has been 
affirmed 

That the Founders . . . require their Professors to teach "all other 
doctrines of our holy religion " — leaviug it for them to determine what 
those " other doctrines " are, — " according to the best light God shall 
give them." 1 

But this statement is not true. As has already been shown, the 
Founders themselves determine what "the other doctrines" are. 
Their language is not "all other doctrines," but it is, "all the 
other doctrines." They have in mind certain definite doctrines. 
Other words of vital significance they also add. They say : "all 
the other doctrines of our holy religion." Of whose holy religion? 
Of the holy religion of the professors? Not necessarily. Of 
the holy religion of Rellyan Universalists ? By no means. The 
Founders say: "all the other doctrines of our holy religion." 
The writers of the Creed and Declaration were Consistent Calvin- 
ists, and when they said " our holy religion," they meant the 
holy religion of Consistent Calvinists, and all their doctrines were 
clearly defined and well known. It was assumed that no man fit 
to be a professor in Andover Seminary would ever subscribe to 
the Creed of the Founders before knowing definitely what the 
doctrines of that Creed are ; and that no man fit to be an An- 
dover professor would ever subscribe to the promises of the 
Declaration of the Founders, before knowing definitely what he 
promises to do. Any man of sufficient scholarship to occupy any 
chair in Andover Seminary does know what the doctrines of its 
Creed are, and what "all the other doctrines of" the Founders' 
"holy religion" are. Any man destitute of this knowledge of 
Consistent Calvinism is thereby disqualified to hold a professor- 
ship in this Seminary. The Founders never intended to allow 
men to subscribe to their Creed not knowing what they subscribed 
to, and then leave it to them to determine afterwards to what they 

1 The Creed of Andover Theological Seminary, by Rev. D. T. Fiske, D.D., p. 26. 



Fallacious Arguments. 279 

had subscribed. Nor did they ever intend to allow men to sub- 
scribe to the solemn promises of their Declaration, not knowing 
what they promised, and then leave it to them to determine after- 
ward what they had promised. Even if it shall be found — which 
may God forbid ! — that there are men in the administration 
of Andover Seminary who are willing that professors-elect and 
professors in service should make the most momentous and 
sacred promises not knowing what they promise, and then are 
willing to leave it to the professors to determine at their leisure, 
" according to the best light God shall give them," what they have 
promised, yet two things are certain : the Founders did not belong 
to that class of men ; and they never intended that that class of 
men should ever have part in the administration of their Seminary. 

The doctrines intended by the Founders to be maintained and 
inculcated in their Theological Institution are clearly designated 
in their Creed and Declaration, and as clearly in their Declaration 
as in their Creed. It cannot be affirmed, that the phrase " all 
the other doctrines of owrholy religion" is equivalent to the phrase 
" all other doctrines of the holy religion of any man who may be 
elected to, or may wish to retain, a professor's chair in Andover 
Seminary." Nor can it be denied, that the phrase, " all the other 
doctrines of our holy religion," as written by the Founders, does 
mean exactly, and was intended to mean, all the other doctrines of 
the holy religion of Consistent Calvinists. This designation of 
doctrines is not indeterminate and elastic, as it has falsely been 
represented to be. It is a positive, definite, and clearly decisive 
designation. Every man qualified to be an Andover professor 
knows what these "other doctrines" are; for according to the 
Statutes of the Associate Foundation, a professor on this Founda- 
tion must be a " Consistent Calvinist": and to say that a man 
can be a Consistent Calvinist and not know what the doctrines of 
his own faith are, is like saying that a man can have a clear and 
positive belief in the existence of God, and yet not know what 
his own belief respecting the existence of God is. 

Every intelligent man, therefore, who subscribes to the Creed 
and Declaration of the Founders of this Seminary knows exactly 
what doctrines he promised to maintain and inculcate, or, if he 
does not know, but intends to determine later at his leisure, " ac- 
cording to the best light God shall give him," what doctrines he 



280 Fallacious Arguments. 

has promised to maintain and inculcate, then, beyond controversy, 
he is not an honest man. He has not been true to himself ; he 
has dealt dishonorably with the Founders, and deceitfully with 
the official guardians of the Seminary, and so is morally disquali- 
fied to occupy any chair in the Andover Theological Institution. 

Summary of Designated Fallacious Arguments. 

We have now presented several examples of the fallacious 
arguments used by the defendant and his supporters in their 
replies to the charges of the complainants : First, the worthless 
argument based upon the false statement of the defendant, that 
" the question of the personal relation of Christ to the entire 
race," " was not before the minds of the authors ... of the Sem- 
inary Creed " ; secondly, fallacious arguments based upon an 
adroit use of undefined fundamental terms and phrases — a method 
of reasoning in which the Andover progressives use the same 
theological words and expressions now in one sense and now in 
another sense, thus attempting to be at one and the same time on 
both sides of great theological issues, or, as the Rev. Frederic 
Palmer impressively expresses it, " taking back with one hand 
what they give with the other " ; and all this for the confessed 
purpose of making and keeping up connections with the existing 
evangelical doctrines of the Andover Creed, which doctrines Mr. 
Palmer, as well as the complainants, claims they have utterly 
abandoned ; and thirdly, the fallacious arguments of the defence, 
built upon a total misrepresentation of the meaning and purpose 
of the now famous clause, " according to the best light God 
shall give me." 



VIII. 

CONCLUSION. 

The evidence and arguments which the complainants desired to 
present are now before the Reverend and Honorable Board of 
Visitors. We have abundantly substantiated, as we claim, the 
first, second, third, fifth, sixth, twelfth, and thirteenth part'oular 
charges ; and in proving the truth of these specific allegations, 
we have also fully justified the four general complaints which 
we have presented to your Board. The remaining charges we 
have refrained from considering at this hearing, not because 
we deemed them unimportant, but partly for lack of time and. 
partly because, in our opinion, the presentation of evidence and 
argument in proof of seven specific charges would be sufficient 
to convince the Board of Visitors that "Progressive Orthodoxy," 
as now held and taught by the defendant in Anclover Seminary, 
is not the Consistent Calvinism which the Seminary was founded 
to maintain and inculcate, but is undeniably in absolute conflict 
with the Creed and Statutes of the Founders. 

The Dogma of Probation after Death not Considered. 

It may have been expected, however, that we would again call 
special attention to the eleventh specific allegation, which charges 
that the defendant holds and teaches, " that there is, and will be, 
probation after death for all men who do not decisively reject 
Christ during the earthly life." But we have not occupied your 
time in presenting directly any proof of this charge for two rea- 
sons : First, the cogent and exhaustive, the unanswered and 
the unanswerable argument of our departed associate complain- 
ant, the Rev. Henry M. Dexter, d.d., in support of this com- 
plaint is in priut, and is in the hands of the Board of Visitors. 
Such an argument as that needs nothing supplementary from us. 
Secondly, this doctrine or hypothesis of a probation after death, 
though most baneful in its spiritual and moral influence, and cer- 
tainly " hazardous to the souls of men," is yet not the central 



282 Conclusion. 

and dominating principle in "Progressive Orthodoxy," or, in 
what we have shown to be substantially the same thing, Rellyan 
Universalism. Indeed, when the root-principle of this new-old 
theology of the Andover progressives is fully developed and 
applied , it will be found that they do not believe in any probation, 
in the evangelical sense of that term, either in this life or in the 
next. This notion of a probation continued into the next world 
has been merely the red flag of the defendant and his immediate 
supporters in all this controversy. They have kept it waving 
briskly, especially by means of their conflict with the American 
Board, for the purpose of absorbing public attention while they 
have devoted their best energies to the more serious work of 
evolving and applying — and also of disclosing little by little, as 
evangelical people and churches should be found to bear it — the 
root-principle of this system, which is the vital union of the entire 
human race with Christ. While the complainants have not directly 
considered this notion of a future probation, yet in uncovering the 
true character of this root-principle in " Progressive Orthodoxy,' 
and in showing that that principle is utterly unproved and ground- 
less, ridiculous and false, that it is of heathen and not of Chris- 
tian origin, we have also unavoidably shown that such a probation 
after death as the defendant believes in and advocates, is abso- 
lutely impossible. His idea of probation, if he is consistent with 
his own fundamental and guiding principle, must be, that it is 
simply opportunity given to men to attain the knowledge of their 
own vital union with God in Christ, that is, knowledge of their 
own deity. But if there is no such vital union of all men with 
God in Christ, opportunity to attain knowledge of it is impossible. 
For these reasons we have not thought it needful to take up your 
time in presenting evidence and argument in proof of the eleventh 
particular charge. 

The Gkeat Questions at Issue in the Andover Case. 

It was stated at the opening of this argument that there are in 
the Andover Case two great questions, one theological and the 
other moral ; and that the latter is the supreme question in this 
trial. 

The theological question is this: — Is the "new theology," 
called i; Progressive Orthodoxy," which is now confessedly held 



Conclusion. 283 

and taught by the defendant and his progressive associates in 
Andover Seminary, in accord with, or in irrepressible conflict with, 
" the Christian faith as expressed in the Creed," and in that Con- 
sistent Calvinism prescribed in the Statutes as the only theology 
which can be lawfully held and taught by any professor on these 
foundations? The determination of this theological question is 
preliminary, and absolutely necessary to the determination of the 
moral and supreme question in the Andover Case. 

The Supreme Question at Issue. 

The moral question is this : — Is it a righteous act on the part 
of an Andover professor who has subscribed to the Andover 
Creed, and has promised, as under oath, to teach " the Christian 
faith as expressed in that Creed," after having radically changed 
his theological beliefs, and accepted a faith opposed to that 
Creed, to still occupy and to insist upon occupying his professorial 
chair in the said Seminary? Is it just and honorable for an 
Andover professor who was elected to his office as a Consistent 
Calvinist, who declared himself to be a Consistent Calvinist, and 
on his honor as a gentleman and a Christian promised to teach 
Consistent Calvinism, to claim afterward the right to remain in 
his chair and be supported by the Andover funds, although he 
has ceased to be a Consistent Calvinist? Is it right and honest 
action on the part of such a professor who has ceased to be a 
Consistent Calvinist, and is now holding and teaching another 
theology, admitted by him to be another and a t; new theology," 
and designated by a new name, to insist upon retaining his pro- 
fessorship, and using the Seminary, its funds, its prestige, its 
name, and its fame to aid him in maintaining and promulgating 
this " new theology," proved to be opposed to that of the Creed 
and the Statutes of the Founders? Such is the moral question. 
And it towers high above all other questions which are at issue in 
this trial. 

The Answer Given to the Theological Question. 

The complainants would gladly learn that they are mistaken 
in the conclusion which they have reached upon the theological 
question. But upon our honor we cannot believe that we are 
mistaken. We have now presented evidence and arguments abun- 



284 Conclusion. 

dantly sufficient, as we believe, to more than justify all our com- 
plaints, and to convince the Board of Visitors, and all other 
intelligent and unprejudiced Christian men, that this new-old 
theology called "Progressive Orthodoxy " is not ' orthodox and 
consistent Calvinism,' but is in irrepressible conflict with the 
theology defined in the Seminary Creed and Statutes, and re- 
quired by the Founders to be taught on the Andover Foundations. 

The Answer Given to the Moral Question. 

Therefore, the answer to the moral and supreme question in 
this case, is, we submit, obvious and inevitable. The moment it 
is decided, that "Progressive Orthodoxy" is antagonistic to 
" the Christian faith as expressed in the Creed" and Statutes of 
the Founders, it is also decided that the defendant, in holding 
and teaching c ' Progressive Orthodoxy " while supported by 
Andover funds, is guilty of immoral and criminal action. He 
is getting possession of other people's property by unlawful 
methods, and using that property in the service of his own inter- 
ests. As surely as "Progressive Orthodoxy" is not the Con- 
sistent Calvinism of the Andover Creed and Statutes, but is 
opposed to it, so surely the defendant is doing morally what 
James Relly did when he got possession of another person's 
money by unlawful methods and put it to his own use ; for doing 
which he was tried and condemned in court, and on account of 
which, and because of other " scandalous practices," his fol- 
lowers forsook him and left him to die in disgrace. As surely 
as the defendant and his progressive associates are teaching in 
Andover Seminary, under cover of the name, " Progressive 
Orthodoxy," a theology which is opposed to that defined in the 
Creed and Statutes, so surely they are doing substantially what 
John Murray did when he obtained support and endorsement 
from orthodox people, and the free use of orthodox pulpits and 
churches, under false pretences, by making the impression that 
he was an orthodox man, and was preaching the evangelical 
faith, when in fact he was a Relly anist, and was covertly, little 
by little, as his orthodox hearers would bear it, preaching Rellyan 
Universalism. The Andover progressives, as surely as our de- 
cision of the theological question is correct, are now obtaining 
support and endorsement from orthodox people, and the free use 



Conclusion. 285 

of a richly endowed orthodox Seminary, of its honored name, its 
prestige and its funds, by deceptive methods, by claiming that 
they are holding and teaching a theology which is "new," 
and is properly and truthfully called "Progressive Orthodoxy " 
when in fact, it is not new, and as judged by the standard of 
the Andover Creed, is neither orthodoxy nor progressive, but is 
heterodoxy and retrogressive. The truth is, unless all our evi- 
dence and arguments are at fault, these same self-styled progress- 
ives are moving, as fast as their peculiar circumstances in an 
orthodox Seminary will permit, backward and downward towards 
the old pagan Pantheism of Greece and India. Consequently 
we are compelled to believe, that the defendant, in teaching in 
Andover Seminary what we claim to have shown to be Rellyan, 
or Pantheistic, Universalism, is guilty of morally disreputable 
and even criminal conduct. 

Expert Opinion. 

Moreover, according to expert opinion as given in the reli- 
gious press, and in our larger periodicals, The Reviews and Quar- 
terlies, denominational and undenominational, conservative and 
liberal, we are warranted in saying, as we are prepared to show 
by citations, that the almost universal verdict of trained theo- 
logians of all schools and sects upon the theological question in 
the Andover Case, is, that the "new theology" recently intro- 
duced into Andover Seminary is in irrepressible conflict with that 
of the Seminary Creed and Statutes. Consequently and inevi- 
tably the almost universal verdict of our religious papers, evan- 
gelical and liberal, and of our larger periodicals, so far as they 
have discussed the Andover Case, upon the great moral question 
at issue in this trial, is, that to teach this " new theology" on the 
Andover Foundations cannot be justified by any right standard 
of morals. There is abundant evidence, also, that this capturing 
of an orthodox theological Seminary, and then using it for the 
maintenance and inculcation of an unorthodox and liberal faith, 
is a type of dishonesty which is peculiarly odious. 

There is a species of bird that never builds its own nest. It is 
called the " cow bird." It watches some other birds as they 
laboriously build their nest and begin to lay in it their eggs. 
Then it steals into their cozy nest, or, if need be, fights its way 



286 Conclusion. 

into it, and there lays its eggs also, and thus compels the owners 
of the nest to hatch out and rear a brood of cow birds. It is a 
mean bird that will do that. There is a species or class of reli- 
gionists, that never yet, so far as we know, has built its own the- 
ological seminary. They have sometimes been called Rellyanists. 
Some men of this faith have been casting covetous eyes upon a 
richly furnished and famous Seminary on Andover Hill. This 
institution was built and endowed by orthodox and Consistent 
Calvinists, for the express and sole purpose of sending forth 
from it every year a brood of Christian young men, trained 
at the expense of the Founders, to go everywhere in the wide 
world, preaching the Christian faith as denned by Consistent 
Calvinists. But these modern Rellyanists are now capturing this 
same orthodox and richly endowed Seminary, and are using it 
for the purpose of sending forth from it every year a brood of 
young men, trained at the expense of its Calvinistic Founders, to 
preach Rellyan Universalis m to their fellow-men, — a faith with 
which the Founders, to their sorrow, were well acquainted, which 
they abhorred, and which by statute they pledged every professor 
in their Seminary to the end of time not to teach, but to oppose. 

Now there is no blinking the fact that the universal public 
conscience declares, that that is not an honorable thing for any 
class of men to do ; and that any religious faith that will prompt, 
or even allow, such action is an immoral faith. Can any man 
point out, in all history, a single instance in which Calvinists — 
Consistent Calvinists, or any other kind of true Calvinists — have 
thus captured a seminary, or any other institution, or property, 
belonging to some sect or school of a liberal faith, and then used 
it for the propagation of Calvinism? Calvinists have not been 
found doing such things, nor have the\ T been found counseling 
and encouraging one another to do such things as a shrewd and 
easy method of disseminating their Calvinistic beliefs. 

The New York Observer (August 11, 1892), in an editorial 
decidedly pertinent to these times, and in particular to this An- 
dover Case, asks the following questions, and practically answers 
them : — 

What Calvinist ever advised Calvinists publicly to subscribe to an anti- 
Calvinistic creed, and then to teach and defend Calvinism within an anti- 
Calvinistic denomination? What Calvinist ever advised Calvinists to 



Conclusion. 287 

hold office and take emoluments on anti-Calvimstic foundations ? What 
orthodox body ever put to its own use endowments that were given to 
spread " progressive" theology? The history of religious endowments 
shows without an exception, if we are not mistaken, that it is the looser 
creed that filches from the stricter, and not the stricter from the looser. 

These questions and this statement of The Observer not only 
pay a just tribute of praise to Calvinistic honesty, but also con- 
tain a severe indictment against the morality of the so-called 
Andover Progressives. But this citation is only a sample of the 
almost universal judgment, so far as we can ascertain, of the 
religious press, upon the great moral question in the Andover 
Case. There can be no doubt, that before the august tribunal of 
the public religious conscience, the defendant, for teaching what 
he calls " Progressive Orthodoxy" on the Andover Foundations, 
already stands adjudged as guilty of morally disreputable and 
criminal conduct. This verdict reinforces the conclusion which 
the complainants have reached through the most careful examina- 
tion which they have been able to make of ''Progressive Ortho- 
doxy " itself, as compared with the theology defined in the 
Andover Creed and Statutes, and as set forth in that clearly 
described and well-known system of Christian Faith, which Andover 
Seminary was founded to maintain and inculcate, and which the 
Founders called " Consistent Calvinism." 

Final Appeal to the Board of Visitors. 

Mr. President and Gentlemen of the Board of Visitors : Our 
responsibility in this Andover Case has terminated, but yours has 
not. The momentous question, What is to be the future of this 
great Institution of sacred learning, is now to be decided by you. 

By the Statutes under which you act, you are invested with 
large powers. Your authority is supreme in this Seminary. The 
Statutes make it evident, that you were invested with such extra- 
ordinary powers and authority, for the very purpose, that in a 
great emergency like the present, you might be able to determine, 
in the face of all opposition, that the theological instruction in 
this Seminary shall not be opposed to "the Christian faith as 
expressed in the Creed " to which every professor has subscribed, 
but shall be in full and hearty accord with ' ' the true intention " 
of the Founders as declared in their Constitution and Statutes. 



288 . Conclusion. 

By appointment from the Founders themselves, you three 
gentlemen stand as in their " place and stead, the Guardians, 
Overseers and Protectors" of their Foundation. Standing thus 
in the place of the Founders, you are required to " see" that this 
sacred Trust is executed by all persons who have any respon- 
sibility in its execution, in strict accordance with the purposes for 
which the Seminary was established and endowed. You are also 
required to " effectually guard the same " sacred Trust " against 
all perversion, or the smallest avoidance of the true design" of 
the Founders. 

It is likewise made your imperative duty " to determine, inter- 
pret, and explain the Statutes of the said Foundation in all cases 
brought before" you in your "judicial capacity." This critical 
and decisive work of interpreting the Statutes was not intrusted 
to the Faculty. It was not committed to the Board of Trustees. 
To you, the Board of Visitors, and to you alone, is intrusted the 
high power of determining, interpreting, and explaining the 
Statutes of the Seminary. To-day, you, and you only, are in- 
vested with the power to give a legal and authoritative interpre- 
tation of the principal Statute which we have brought before 
you, namely, that which embodies "the Creed and Declaration." 
You are now called upon to "interpret and explain" in your 
"judicial capacity," this Statute in its relation to the "new the- 
ology," so called, which has recently been introduced into the 
Seminary, and is now taught in the place of the theology of the 
Seminary Creed. The facts in the case have been presented. 
The Andover theology — the only theology that can ever truth- 
fully be called the Andover theology — that which is defined in 
Article II of the Statutes of the Associate Foundation, is before 
you. Another theology also, named recently by its pretended 
discoverers "Progressive Orthodoxy," is before you. Can this 
"new theology "of the defendant and of his progressive asso- 
ciates rightfully usurp the place of the Consistent Calvinism of 
the Founders? Can "Progressive Orthodoxy," which has been 
boastfully set forth as "The Theology of To-day," but which is 
not necessarily The Theology of To-morrow, be lawfully and 
righteously taught in Andover Seminary, in the place of the the- 
ology of that Creed, concerning which the Associate Founders 

everv article "of it " shall for- 



Conclusion. 289 

ever remain entirely and identically the same, without the least 
alteration, addition or diminution"? These are the questions 
which we place before you. The responsibility of answering 
them rests upon you. 

But, permit us to add, Gentlemen of the Board of Visitors, 
that, in the Providence of God, you have here and now an oppor- 
tunity, such as has rarely been given to men on this earth, to 
serve in the largest way some of the dearest, grandest interests 
of countless individual souls, of the Church universal, and of the 
world itself. This Seminary was founded to reach round the 
globe with its evangelistic, redeeming, and glorifying power, and 
then onward through all the ages until Christ shall come again. 

It is your high and blessed privilege to be, under God, the 
supreme guardians of this head fountain of a world-wide re- 
demption ; to stand where you can be true to those large-hearted 
and God-fearing men, the Founders, according to your solemn 
promise ; true to their sacred and sublime purposes ; and at the 
same time true on the largest scale to God's kingdom of truth 
and righteousness. For yours is the rare, angelic mission to per- 
petuate this evangelical Theological Seminary as a great foun- 
tain of gospel light and salvation, by declaring, with all the 
authority of your high office, that there shall be no more trifling 
in these holy places with sacred obligations ; that no professor on 
these foundations shall promise to teach one theology, and then 
teach another, which is opposed to the one he has promised to 
teach ; but that in the heart and mind, in the life and teaching of 
every professor who shall remain one day in office, there must 
be that living, energizing, evangelical, orthodox, and Calvinistic 
faith, which the Founders in their Statutes declared to be l Tlie 
Christian faith as expressed in their Creed ' ; which faith is no 
new discovery of yesterday or of the day before ; which is not 
merely an experiment of to-day, and may be thrown aside to- 
morrow ; which is not either the old pagan wisdom of ancient 
Greeks just rediscovered, and now paraded before the public as 
the newest, most advanced, and most "progressive orthodoxy"; 
but which faith is in truth "The Christian Faith," that for nearly 
nineteen centuries has been " the power of God, and the wisdom 
of God" "unto salvation to every one that believeth"; which 
going forth from this one Seminary into all the world during now 



290 Conclusion. 

the larger part of a century, has brought uncounted multitudes 
into the eternal service of Christ ; and which, if permitted by one 
word and one act of yours to do so, will yet bring millions more 
into the kiugdom of God. Thus, through your fidelity to a great 
and holy Trust, this Seminary, in strict accordance with the grand 
purpose of the Founders, shall do its honorable part in the sublime 
and beatific work of fulfilling the last great command of our 
ascending Lord: " Go ye therefore, and make disciples of all the 
nations, baptizing them into the name of the Father and of the 
Son and of the Holy Ghost: teaching them to observe all 

THINGS WHATSOEVER I COMMANDED YOU." 



